Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31780800›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Copy Number Variations in a Cohort of 420 Individuals with Neurodevelopmental Disorders From the South of Brazil.

Tiago Fernando Chaves, Nathacha Baretto, Luan Freitas de Oliveira, Maristela Ocampos, Ingrid Tremel Barbato, Mayara Anselmi, Gisele Rozone De Luca, Jorge Humberto Barbato Filho, Louise Lapagesse de Camargo Pinto, Pricila Bernardi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tiago Fernando ChavesUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. tiagochavo@msn.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5324-412X
Nathacha BarettoUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Luan Freitas de OliveiraUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Maristela OcamposLaboratory Neurogene, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Ingrid Tremel BarbatoLaboratory Neurogene, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Mayara AnselmiUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Gisele Rozone De LucaChildren's Hospital Joana de Gusmão, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Jorge Humberto Barbato FilhoLaboratory Neurogene, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Louise Lapagesse de Camargo PintoChildren's Hospital Joana de Gusmão, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Pricila BernardiUniversity Hospital Professor Polydoro Ernani de São Thiago, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Angelica Francesca MarisUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. afmaris@gmail.com.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina · BREngene (Brazil) · BRHospital Infantil Joana de Gusmão · BRPolydoro Ernani de São Thiago University Hospital · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is now recommended as first tier for the evaluation in individuals with unexplained neurodevelopmental disorders (ND). However, in developing countries such as Brazil, classical cytogenetic tests are still the most used in clinical practice, as reflected by the scarcity of publications of microarray investigation in larger cohorts. This is a retrospective study which analyses the reading files of CMA and available clinical data from 420 patients from the south of Brazil, mostly children, with neurodevelopmental disorders requested by medical geneticists and neurologists for diagnostic purpose. Previous karyotyping was reported for 138 and includes 17 with abnormal results. The platforms used for CMA were CYTOSCAN 750K (75%) and CYTOSCAN HD (25%). The sex ratio of the patients was 1.625 males :1 female and the mean age was 9.5 years. A total of 96 pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs), 58 deletions and 38 duplications, were found in 18% of the patients and in all chromosomes, except chromosome 11. For 12% of the patients only variants of uncertain clinical significance were found. No clinically relevant CNV was found in 70%. The main referrals for chromosomal microarrays (CMA) were developmental delay (DD), intellectual disability (ID), facial dysmorphism and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). DD/ID were present in 80%, facial dysmorphism in 52% and ASD in 32%. Some phenotypes in this population could be predictive of a higher probability to carry a pathogenic CNV, as follows: dysmorphic facial features (p-value = < 0.0001, OR = 0.32), obesity (p-value = 0.006, OR = 0.20), short stature (p-value = 0.032, OR = 0.44), genitourinary anomalies (p-value = 0.032, OR = 0.63) and ASD (p-value = 0.039, OR = 1.94). The diagnostic rate for CMA in this study was 18%. We present the largest report of CMA data in a cohort with ND in Brazil. We characterize the rare CNVs found together with the main phenotypes presented by each patient, list phenotypes which could predict a higher diagnostic probability by CMA in patients with a neurodevelopmental disorder and show how CMA and classical karyotyping results are complementary.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsAdolescentAdultAutism Spectrum DisorderBrazilChildChild, PreschoolChromosome AberrationsDevelopmental DisabilitiesFemaleHumansInfantIntellectual DisabilityKaryotypingMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID31780800
PMCPMC6882836
OpenAlexW2991064153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.