Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32203227›Full record

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

Systematic evidence-based review: outcomes from exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability.

Jennifer Malinowski, David T Miller, Laurie Demmer, Jennifer Gannon, Elaine Maria Pereira, Molly C Schroeder, Maren T Scheuner, Anne Chun-Hui Tsai, Scott E Hickey, Jun Shen and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Cited by 58 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Systematic Review: The Psychosocial Impacts of Autism-Related Genetic Testing.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Novel BiallelicGenes · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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.

Jennifer Malinowski *Write Inscite, LLC, Hebron, CT, USA.
David T Miller *Division of Genetics and Genomics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Laurie DemmerAtrium Health's Levine Children's Hospital, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Jennifer GannonDivision of Clinical Genetics, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Elaine Maria PereiraDivision of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Molly C SchroederDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Maren T ScheunerDivision of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics and Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Anne Chun-Hui TsaiSection of Clinical Genetics and Metabolism, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Scott E Hickey *Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jun Shen *Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
ACMG Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeExome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) are performed frequently in patients with congenital anomalies, developmental delay, or intellectual disability (CA/DD/ID), but the impact of results from ES/GS on clinical management and patient outcomes is not well characterized. A systematic evidence review (SER) can support future evidence-based guideline development for use of ES/GS in this patient population.

methodsWe undertook an SER to identify primary literature from January 2007 to March 2019 describing health, clinical, reproductive, and psychosocial outcomes resulting from ES/GS in patients with CA/DD/ID. A narrative synthesis of results was performed.

resultsWe retrieved 2654 publications for full-text review from 7178 articles. Only 167 articles met our inclusion criteria, and these were primarily case reports or small case series of fewer than 20 patients. The most frequently reported outcomes from ES/GS were changes to clinical management or reproductive decision-making. Two studies reported on the reduction of mortality or morbidity or impact on quality of life following ES/GS.

conclusionThere is evidence that ES/GS for patients with CA/DD/ID informs clinical and reproductive decision-making, which could lead to improved outcomes for patients and their family members. Further research is needed to generate evidence regarding health outcomes to inform robust guidelines regarding ES/GS in the care of patients with CA/DD/ID.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityChildChromosome MappingExomeExome SequencingHumansQuality of Lifeclinical geneticscongenital anomaliesexome sequencingintellectual disabilitysystematic evidence review

Identifiers

PMID32203227
PMCPMC7222126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.