Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34283395›Full record

ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2021

Clinical Exome Reanalysis: Current Practice and Beyond.

Jianling Ji, Marco L Leung, Samuel Baker, Joshua L Deignan, Avni Santani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Jianling Ji *Center for Personalized Medicine, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marco L Leung *Department of Pathology and Department of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Samuel BakerDepartment of Genetics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Joshua L DeignanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Avni SantaniVeritas Genetics, Boston, MA, USA. santani@email.chop.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel gene-disease discoveries, rapid advancements in technology, and improved bioinformatics tools all have the potential to yield additional molecular diagnoses through the reanalysis of exome sequencing data. Collaborations between clinical laboratories, ordering physicians, and researchers are also driving factors that can contribute to these new insights. Automation in ongoing natural history collection, evolving phenotype updates, advancements in processing next-generation sequencing data, and up-to-date variant-gene-disease databases are increasingly needed for systematic exome reanalysis. Here, we review some of the advantages and challenges for clinician-initiated and laboratory-initiated exome reanalysis, and we propose a model for the future that could potentially maximize the clinical utility of exome reanalysis by integrating information from electronic medical records and knowledge databases into routine clinical workflows.

Indexed as

ExomeLaboratories, ClinicalComputational BiologyExome SequencingHumansPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID34283395
PMCPMC8410709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.