Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31974414›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2020

An approach to integrating exome sequencing for fetal structural anomalies into clinical practice.

Neeta L Vora, Kelly Gilmore, Alicia Brandt, Chelsea Gustafson, Natasha Strande, Lori Ramkissoon, Emily Hardisty, Ann Katherine M Foreman, Kirk Wilhelmsen, Phillips Owen and 4 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neeta L VoraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. neeta_vora@med.unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2504-9455
Kelly GilmoreDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alicia BrandtDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Chelsea GustafsonDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Natasha StrandeDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Lori RamkissoonDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Emily HardistyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Ann Katherine M ForemanDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kirk WilhelmsenDepartments of Genetics and Neurology, Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Phillips OwenRenaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Karen E WeckDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jonathan S BergDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Cynthia M PowellDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Bradford C PowellDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-gen Exome Sequencing 2U01HG006487 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BERG, JONATHAN S, POWELL, BRADFORD C. · 2012 to 2021
$22.7M
Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis by Genomic Sequencing: A Prospective EvaluationR01HD055651 · NICHD · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Wendy K Chung, Vaidehi Jobanputra · 2007 to 2026
$16.5M
UNC BIRCWH CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMK12HD001441 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BOGGESS, KIM A · 2000 to 2019
$9.3M
Early Genomic DiagnosisK23HD088742 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI VORA, NEETA L · 2017 to 2020
$685k
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006487NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001441NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD088742NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD055651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe investigated the diagnostic and clinical performance of trio exome sequencing (ES) in parent-fetus trios where the fetus had sonographic abnormalities but normal karyotype, microarray and, in some cases, normal gene-specific sequencing.

methodsES was performed from DNA of 102 anomalous fetuses and from peripheral blood from their parents. Parents provided consent for the return of diagnostic results in the fetus, medically actionable findings in the parents, and identification as carrier couple for significant autosomal recessive conditions.

resultsIn 21/102 (20.6%) fetuses, ES provided a positive-definitive or positive-probable diagnosis. In 10/102 (9.8%), ES provided an inconclusive-possible result. At least 2/102 (2.0%) had a repeat pregnancy during the study period and used the information from the study for prenatal diagnosis in the next pregnancy. Six of 204 (2.9%) parents received medically actionable results that affected their own health and 3/102 (2.9%) of couples received results that they were carriers for the same autosomal recessive condition.

conclusionES has diagnostic utility in a select population of fetuses where a genetic diagnosis was highly suspected. Challenges related to genetics literacy, variant interpretation, and various types of diagnostic results affecting both fetal and parental health must be addressed by highly tailored pre- and post-test genetic counseling.

Indexed as

ExomeUltrasonography, PrenatalExome SequencingFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstPrenatal Diagnosiscounselingdiagnosisethicsexomeprenatal

Identifiers

PMID31974414
PMCPMC7205580
OpenAlexW3002007531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.