ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2021
An Objective Approach to Identify Priority Rare Diseases for the Development of Solutions Reducing the Diagnostic Delay Based on French Data.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Rare Diseases: Workflow-Integrated Precision Kidney Care.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
- Patient-Reported Experience Measurements From Individuals With Inherited Retinal Disorders Involved in Observational Research.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A study of the patient journey in 13 European countries.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Rare disease education in Europe and beyond: time to act.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Article
- Diagnostic delay in rare diseases: data from the Spanish rare diseases patient registry.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A timely diagnosis is a critical step to ensure a proper access to expert clinical management for patients. However, diagnosing rare diseases (RD) is a major challenge, as they are not only numerous but also extremely diverse in their expression and cause. This generates a long lag time between first symptoms and diagnosis, unanimously thought to be unacceptably long in many cases, and amenable to improvement. Digital technologies offer new opportunities for improving diagnosis and care in a sector with urgent needs. However, developing and testing digital solutions would only be possible for a limited number of rare diseases (RD). The approach presented here aims at proposing an objective way of defining a subset of "priority" RD to focus on for the development and test of new solutions to reduce the time to diagnosis. An approach which is relevant not only when developing and testing new digital solutions but also organizational solutions in the field of RDs. The priority RDs presented herein have been highlighted using two objective criteria: the existence of a well-defined and established standard of care management, defined as the availability of a medicinal product specifically targeting the disease; and / or the existence of authoritative clinical guidelines. Our approach, based on French data, led to the establishment of a list of 251 RD for which a delayed diagnosis would be especially detrimental for the patient. This work demonstrates the feasibility of identifying objectively a subset of RD at urgent needs for the development of solutions to reduce the delay to diagnosis, if choices have to be made, based on publicly and well-established available data. The proposed list needs to be updated and adapted to the local situation, and validated by experts to establish if the delay to diagnosis can be reduced.
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.