Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33110268›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2021

Cost-effectiveness of genome-wide sequencing for unexplained developmental disabilities and multiple congenital anomalies.

Chunmei Li, Stacey Vandersluis, Corinne Holubowich, Wendy J Ungar, Elaine S Goh, Kym M Boycott, Nancy Sikich, Irfan Dhalla, Vivian Ng

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Should Scotland provide genome-wide sequencing for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders? A cost-effectiveness analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Chunmei LiOntario Health (Quality), Toronto, ON, Canada. chunmei.li@ontariohealth.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0507-0716
Stacey VandersluisOntario Health (Quality), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Corinne HolubowichOntario Health (Quality), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Wendy J UngarProgram of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Elaine S GohLaboratory Medicine and Genetics, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Kym M BoycottChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Nancy SikichOntario Health (Quality), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Irfan DhallaOntario Health (Quality), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Vivian NgOntario Health (Quality), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Public Health Ontario · CATrillium Health Centre · CAUnity Health TorontoUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGenetic testing is routine practice for individuals with unexplained developmental disabilities and multiple congenital anomalies. However, current testing pathways can be costly and time consuming, and the diagnostic yield low. Genome-wide sequencing, including exome sequencing (ES) and genome sequencing (GS), can improve diagnosis, but at a higher cost. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of genome-wide sequencing in Ontario, Canada.

methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a discrete event simulation from a public payer perspective. Six strategies involving ES or GS were compared. Outcomes reported were direct medical costs, number of molecular diagnoses, number of positive findings, and number of active treatment changes.

resultsIf ES was used as a second-tier test (after the current first-tier, chromosomal microarray, fails to provide a diagnosis), it would be less costly and more effective than standard testing (CAN$6357 [95% CI: 6179-6520] vs. CAN$8783 per patient [95% CI: 2309-31,123]). If ES was used after standard testing, it would cost an additional CAN$15,228 to identify the genetic diagnosis for one additional patient compared with standard testing. The results remained robust when parameters and assumptions were varied.

conclusionES would likely be cost-saving if used earlier in the diagnostic pathway.

Indexed as

Abnormalities, MultipleDevelopmental DisabilitiesChildCost-Benefit AnalysisExome SequencingHumansOntariocost-effectivenessdevelopmental disabilitiesgenome-wide sequencingmultiple congenital anomalies

Identifiers

PMID33110268
OpenAlexW3096103868

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.