ArticleJournal of community genetics2021
Diagnostic yield and recognized barriers of an adult neurogenetics clinic.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three Years of a New Multidisciplinary Adult Neurogenetics Clinic in Singapore.Neurology. Genetics · 2026Article
- The utility of next generation sequencing targeted multigene panels in the Adult Neurogenetic Clinic at Tygerberg Hospital, South Africa.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Understanding the genetics and neurology: an overview of adult neurogenetics.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 2025Review
- Implementing genomic medicine in clinical practice for adults with undiagnosed rare diseases.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of molecular genetic technologies paved a path for the diagnosis of many neurological disorders. Joint evaluation by a neurologist and a medical genetics specialist can potentially increase diagnostic effectiveness by ensuring the exclusion of non-genetic conditions with similar phenotypes and by rationally selecting appropriate genetic diagnostic tools. Therefore, a monthly adult neurogenetics clinic was established. A retrospective review of medical records of all patients who attended the clinic from April 2015 to March 2019 was conducted. Eighty-two patients were evaluated (age: 47.1 ± 15.7, male: 37(45%), 42 (51%) had a positive family history). Disease duration was typically long (11.4 ± 0.9 years). Futile use of diagnostic modalities was very common (45 (55%) had repeated MRI, 28 (34%) hospitalized for observation in neurologic departments, 12 (14%) had a normal metabolic workup, 4 (5%) with a non-conclusive muscle biopsy, 1 with a normal cerebral angiography). Following clinical evaluation, molecular genetic testing was offered to 67 (82%) patients. In the other 15 (18%), routine workup for the exclusion of non-genetic conditions was not complete; obtainable information regarding family members was missing or that a neurogenetic disorder seemed improbable. Twenty-seven (33%) patients received a definitive diagnosis, either a genetic (23, 28%) or non-genetic (4, 5%). Excluding 4 cases of pre-symptomatic diagnosis, the diagnostic yield was 30%. The adherence to genetic testing recommendations was 62%. The reasons for non-adherence were lack of public funding for the required test (52%) and patient decision not to proceed (48%). Given the frequent futile use of diagnostic modalities, referral of non-genetic conditions with similar phenotypes among neurogenetic disorders, and the complexity of clinical genomic data analysis, a multi-disciplinary neurogenetics clinic seems justified.
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.