ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2021
National external quality assessment for next-generation sequencing-based diagnostics of primary immunodeficiencies.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current genetic diagnostics in inborn errors of immunity.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
- Treatment of an HLH-mimic disease based on HAVCR2 variants with absent TIM-3 expression.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Utility of targeted next generation sequencing for inborn errors of immunity at a tertiary care centre in North India.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing in the Field of Primary Immunodeficiencies: Current Yield, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2021Review
- Implementation of Early Next-Generation Sequencing for Inborn Errors of Immunity: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Implications in Dutch Genome Diagnostic Centers.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dutch genome diagnostic centers (GDC) use next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based diagnostic applications for the diagnosis of primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs). The interpretation of genetic variants in many PIDs is complicated because of the phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity. To analyze uniformity of variant filtering, interpretation, and reporting in NGS-based diagnostics for PID, an external quality assessment was performed. Four main Dutch GDCs participated in the quality assessment. Unannotated variant call format (VCF) files of two PID patient analyses per laboratory were distributed among the four GDCs, analyzed, and interpreted (eight analyses in total). Variants that would be reported to the clinician and/or advised for further investigation were compared between the centers. A survey measuring the experiences of clinical laboratory geneticists was part of the study. Analysis of samples with confirmed diagnoses showed that all centers reported at least the variants classified as likely pathogenic (LP) or pathogenic (P) variants in all samples, except for variants in two genes (PSTPIP1 and BTK). The absence of clinical information complicated correct classification of variants. In this external quality assessment, the final interpretation and conclusions of the genetic analyses were uniform among the four participating genetic centers. Clinical and immunological data provided by a medical specialist are required to be able to draw proper conclusions from genetic data.
Indexed as
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.