Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35390071›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Diagnostic yield of patients with undiagnosed intellectual disability, global developmental delay and multiples congenital anomalies using karyotype, microarray analysis, whole exome sequencing from Central Brazil.

Ana Julia da Cunha Leite, Irene Plaza Pinto, Nico Leijsten, Martina Ruiterkamp-Versteeg, Rolph Pfundt, Nicole de Leeuw, Aparecido Divino da Cruz, Lysa Bernardes Minasi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ana Julia da Cunha LeiteGenetics and Molecular Biology Graduate Program, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Irene Plaza PintoReplicon Research Group, Master Program in Genetics, School of Medical and Life Science, Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Nico LeijstenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Martina Ruiterkamp-VersteegDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Rolph PfundtDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Nicole de LeeuwDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9796-3342
Aparecido Divino da CruzGenetics and Molecular Biology Graduate Program, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0753-3814
Lysa Bernardes MinasiReplicon Research Group, Master Program in Genetics, School of Medical and Life Science, Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2734-4797
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás · BRRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intellectual Disability (ID) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects approximately 3% of children and adolescents worldwide. It is a heterogeneous and multifactorial clinical condition. Several methodologies have been used to identify the genetic causes of ID and in recent years new generation sequencing techniques, such as exome sequencing, have enabled an increase in the detection of new pathogenic variants and new genes associated with ID. The aim of this study was to evaluate exome sequencing with analysis of the ID gene panel as a tool to increase the diagnostic yield of patients with ID/GDD/MCA in Central Brazil, together with karyotype and CMA tests. A retrospective cohort study was carried out with 369 patients encompassing both sexes. Karyotype analysis was performed for all patients. CMA was performed for patients who did not present structural and or numerical alterations in the karyotype. Cases that were not diagnosed after performing karyotyping and CMA were referred for exome sequencing using a gene panel for ID that included 1,252 genes. The karyotype identified chromosomal alterations in 34.7% (128/369). CMA was performed in 83 patients who had normal karyotype results resulting in a diagnostic yield of 21.7% (18/83). Exome sequencing with analysis of the ID gene panel was performed in 19 trios of families that had negative results with previous methodologies. With the ID gene panel analysis, we identified mutations in 63.1% (12/19) of the cases of which 75% (9/12) were pathogenic variants,8.3% (1/12) likely pathogenic and in 16.7% (2/12) it concerned a Variant of Uncertain Significance. With the three methodologies applied, it was possible to identify the genetic cause of ID in 42.3% (156/369) of the patients. In conclusion, our studies show the different methodologies that can be useful in diagnosing ID/GDD/MCA and that whole exome sequencing followed by gene panel analysis, when combined with clinical and laboratory screening, is an efficient diagnostic strategy.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityAdolescentBrazilChildDevelopmental DisabilitiesExome SequencingFemaleHumansKaryotypeMaleMicroarray AnalysisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35390071
PMCPMC8989190
OpenAlexW4226306625

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.