Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34611884›Full record

ArticleClinical genetics2022

Prenatal exome sequencing: A useful tool for the fetal neurologist.

Maayke A de Koning, Mariëtte J V Hoffer, Esther A R Nibbeling, Emilia K Bijlsma, Menno J P Toirkens, Phebe N Adama-Scheltema, E Joanne Verweij, Marieke B Veenhof, Gijs W E Santen, Cacha M P C D Peeters-Scholte

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.3field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Fetal Corpus Callosum Anomalies: A Review of Underlying Genetic Disorders and Prenatal Testing Options.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maayke A de KoningDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0557-7530
Mariëtte J V HofferDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Esther A R NibbelingDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Emilia K BijlsmaDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Menno J P ToirkensDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Phebe N Adama-ScheltemaDepartment of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
E Joanne VerweijDepartment of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marieke B VeenhofDepartment of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gijs W E SantenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Cacha M P C D Peeters-ScholteDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3982-6868
Leiden University · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prenatal exome sequencing (pES) is a promising tool for diagnosing genetic disorders when structural anomalies are detected on prenatal ultrasound. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of pES as an additional modality for fetal neurologists who counsel parents in case of congenital anomalies of the central nervous system (CNS). We assessed 20 pregnancies of 19 couples who were consecutively referred to the fetal neurologist for CNS anomalies. pES had a diagnostic yield of 53% (10/19) with most diagnosed pregnancies having agenesis or hypoplasia of the corpus callosum (7/10). Overall clinical impact was 63% (12/19), of which the pES result aided parental decision making in 55% of cases (6/11), guided perinatal management in 75% of cases (3/4), and was helpful in approving a late termination of pregnancy request in 75% of cases (3/4). Our data suggest that pES had a high diagnostic yield when CNS anomalies are present, although this study is limited by its small sample size. Moreover, pES had substantial clinical impact, which warrants implementation of pES in the routine care of the fetal neurologist in close collaboration with gynecologists and clinical geneticists.

Indexed as

Exome SequencingClinical Decision-MakingConsanguinityDisease ManagementFemaleFetusGenetic Association StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansNervous System MalformationsNeurologistsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePrenatal DiagnosisUltrasonography, PrenatalCNS malformationcounselingexome sequencingfetal neurologyprenatal

Identifiers

PMID34611884
PMCPMC9297851
OpenAlexW3204031450

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.