ArticleNeurology. Genetics2019
Yield of comparative genomic hybridization microarray in pediatric neurology practice.
Article in Neurology. Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Approach to Children with Unexplained Global Developmental Delay in Pediatric Neurology Outpatient Clinic.Neuropediatrics · 2025Observational
- Clinical and Genetic Characteristics of Patients with Unexplained Intellectual Disability/Developmental Delay without Epilepsy.Molecular syndromology · 2023Article
- Chromosome Microarray Analysis for the Investigation of Deletions in Pediatric Movement Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2023Review
- Paroxysmal Movement Disorders.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Neurologic Features with Pathogenic Copy Number Variants.Pediatric neurology briefs · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe present study investigated the diagnostic yield of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in a large cohort of children with diverse neurologic disorders as seen in child neurology practice to test whether pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) were more likely to be detected in specific neurologic phenotypes.
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed on 555 children in whom a genetic etiology was suspected and who underwent whole-genome aCGH testing between 2006 and 2012. Neurologic phenotyping was performed using hospital medical records. An assessment of pathogenicity was made for each CNV, based on recent developments in the literature.
resultsForty-seven patients were found to carry a pathogenic CNV, giving an overall diagnostic yield of 8.59%. Certain phenotypes predicted for the presence of a pathogenic CNV, including developmental delay (odds ratio [OR] 3.69 [1.30-10.51]), cortical visual impairment (OR 2.73 [1.18-6.28]), dysmorphism (OR 2.75 [1.38-5.50]), and microcephaly (OR 2.16 [1.01-4.61]). The combination of developmental delay/intellectual disability with dysmorphism and abnormal head circumference was also predictive for a pathogenic CNV (OR 2.86 [1.02-8.00]). For every additional clinical feature, there was an increased likelihood of detecting a pathogenic CNV (OR 1.18 [1.01-1.38]).
conclusionsThe use of aCGH led to a pathogenic finding in 8.59% of patients. The results support the use of aCGH as a first tier investigation in children with diverse neurologic disorders, although whole-genome sequencing may replace aCGH as the detection method in the future. In particular, the yield was increased in children with developmental delay, dysmorphism, cortical visual impairment, and microcephaly.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.