Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34429528›Full record

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

Evaluating the performance of a clinical genome sequencing program for diagnosis of rare genetic disease, seen through the lens of craniosynostosis.

Zerin Hyder, Eduardo Calpena, Yang Pei, Rebecca S Tooze, Helen Brittain, Stephen R F Twigg, Deirdre Cilliers, Jenny E V Morton, Emma McCann, Astrid Weber and 14 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. BCL11B-related disease: a single phenotypic entity?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The power of mouse models in the diagnostic odyssey of patients with rare congenital anomalies.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

24 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Zerin Hyder *Genomics England, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2972-5481
Eduardo Calpena *Clinical Genetics Group, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Yang Pei *Clinical Genetics Group, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rebecca S Tooze *Clinical Genetics Group, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Helen BrittainGenomics England, London, UK.
Stephen R F TwiggClinical Genetics Group, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Deirdre CilliersOxford Centre for Genomic Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Jenny E V MortonWest Midlands Regional Clinical Genetics Service and Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Emma McCannDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Astrid WeberDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Louise C WilsonClinical Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
Andrew G L DouglasWessex Clinical Genetics Service, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Ruth McGowanWest of Scotland Centre for Genomic Medicine, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Anna NeedGenomics England, London, UK.
Andrew BondGenomics England, London, UK.
Ana Lisa Taylor TavaresGenomics England, London, UK.
Ellen R A ThomasGenomics England, London, UK.
Genomics England Research Consortium
Susan L HillGenomics Unit, NHS England & NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Zandra C DeansGenomics Unit, NHS England & NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Freya Boardman-PrettyGenomics England, London, UK.
Mark CaulfieldGenomics England, London, UK.
Richard H ScottGenomics England, London, UK. Richard.Scott@genomicsengland.co.uk.
Andrew O M WilkieClinical Genetics Group, MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. andrew.wilkie@imm.ox.ac.uk.
Genomics England · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBNHS EnglandUniversity of Liverpool · GBBirmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBQueen Elizabeth University Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0902418Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/M009203/1Medical Research Council MC_PC_14089Medical Research Council MR/M009203/1Medical Research Council MR/T031670/1Wellcome Trust 102731Wellcome Trust 102731/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGenome sequencing (GS) for diagnosis of rare genetic disease is being introduced into the clinic, but the complexity of the data poses challenges for developing pipelines with high diagnostic sensitivity. We evaluated the performance of the Genomics England 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP) panel-based pipelines, using craniosynostosis as a test disease.

methodsGS data from 114 probands with craniosynostosis and their relatives (314 samples), negative on routine genetic testing, were scrutinized by a specialized research team, and diagnoses compared with those made by 100kGP.

resultsSixteen likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants were identified by 100kGP. Eighteen additional likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants were identified by the research team, indicating that for craniosynostosis, 100kGP panels had a diagnostic sensitivity of only 47%. Measures that could have augmented diagnoses were improved calling of existing panel genes (+18% sensitivity), review of updated panels (+12%), comprehensive analysis of de novo small variants (+29%), and copy-number/structural variants (+9%). Recent NHS England recommendations that partially incorporate these measures should achieve 85% overall sensitivity (+38%).

conclusionGS identified likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants in 29.8% of previously undiagnosed patients with craniosynostosis. This demonstrates the value of research analysis and the importance of continually improving algorithms to maximize the potential of clinical GS.

Indexed as

CraniosynostosesGenetic TestingBase SequenceChromosome MappingHumansRare Diseases

Identifiers

PMID34429528
PMCPMC8629760
OpenAlexW3183950937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.