Trial reportClinical and experimental immunology2021
Is gene panel sequencing more efficient than clinical-based gene sequencing to diagnose autoinflammatory diseases? A randomized study.
Trial report in Clinical and experimental immunology, 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.
- SomaticFrontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Systemic Autoinflammatory Disease and Genetic Testing.Rheumatology and immunology research · 2021Article
- Syndrome of Undifferentiated Recurrent Fever (SURF): An Emerging Group of Autoinflammatory Recurrent Fevers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the gene-panel next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy versus the clinical-based gene Sanger sequencing for the genetic diagnosis of autoinflammatory diseases (AIDs). Secondary goals were to describe the gene and mutation distribution in AID patients and to evaluate the impact of the genetic report on the patient's medical care and treatment. Patients with AID symptoms were enrolled prospectively and randomized to two arms, NGS (n = 99) (32-55 genes) and Sanger sequencing (n = 197) (one to four genes). Genotypes were classified as 'consistent/confirmatory', 'uncertain significance' or 'non-contributory'. The proportion of patients with pathogenic genotypes concordant with the AID phenotype (consistent/confirmatory) was significantly higher with NGS than Sanger sequencing [10 of 99 (10·1%) versus eight of 197 (4·1%)]. MEFV, ADA2 and MVK were the most represented genes with a consistent/confirmed genotype, whereas MEFV, NLRP3, NOD2 and TNFRSF1A were found in the 'uncertain significance' genotypes. Six months after the genetic report was sent, 54 of 128 (42·2%) patients had received effective treatment for their symptoms; 13 of 128 (10·2%) had started treatment after the genetic study. For 59 of 128 (46%) patients, the results had an impact on their overall care, independent of sequencing group and diagnostic conclusion. Targeted NGS improved the diagnosis and global care of patients with AIDs.
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.