Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35710456›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2022

Reanalysis of exome negative patients with rare disease: a pragmatic workflow for diagnostic applications.

Gaby Schobers, Jolanda H Schieving, Helger G Yntema, Maartje Pennings, Rolph Pfundt, Ronny Derks, Tom Hofste, Ilse de Wijs, Nienke Wieskamp, Simone van den Heuvel and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
9.5field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Arriving at a diagnosis: Effective strategies used by the Undiagnosed Diseases Network.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Long-term follow-up of children who received rapid genomic sequencing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    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

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gaby Schobers *Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1380-4254
Jolanda H Schieving *Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Helger G YntemaDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maartje PenningsDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rolph PfundtDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ronny DerksDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tom HofsteDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ilse de WijsDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nienke WieskampDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Simone van den HeuvelDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jordi Corominas GalbanyDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Christian GilissenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marcel NelenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Han G BrunnerDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tjitske KleefstraDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Erik-Jan KamsteegDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michèl A A P Willemsen *Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lisenka E L M Vissers *Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. lisenka.vissers@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately two third of patients with a rare genetic disease remain undiagnosed after exome sequencing (ES). As part of our post-test counseling procedures, patients without a conclusive diagnosis are advised to recontact their referring clinician to discuss new diagnostic opportunities in due time. We performed a systematic study of genetically undiagnosed patients 5 years after their initial negative ES report to determine the efficiency of diverse reanalysis strategies.

methodsWe revisited a cohort of 150 pediatric neurology patients originally enrolled at Radboud University Medical Center, of whom 103 initially remained genetically undiagnosed. We monitored uptake of physician-initiated routine clinical and/or genetic re-evaluation (ad hoc re-evaluation) and performed systematic reanalysis, including ES-based resequencing, of all genetically undiagnosed patients (systematic re-evaluation).

resultsAd hoc re-evaluation was initiated for 45 of 103 patients and yielded 18 diagnoses (including 1 non-genetic). Subsequent systematic re-evaluation identified another 14 diagnoses, increasing the diagnostic yield in our cohort from 31% (47/150) to 53% (79/150). New genetic diagnoses were established by reclassification of previously identified variants (10%, 3/31), reanalysis with enhanced bioinformatic pipelines (19%, 6/31), improved coverage after resequencing (29%, 9/31), and new disease-gene associations (42%, 13/31). Crucially, our systematic study also showed that 11 of the 14 further conclusive genetic diagnoses were made in patients without a genetic diagnosis that did not recontact their referring clinician.

conclusionsWe find that upon re-evaluation of undiagnosed patients, both reanalysis of existing ES data as well as resequencing strategies are needed to identify additional genetic diagnoses. Importantly, not all patients are routinely re-evaluated in clinical care, prolonging their diagnostic trajectory, unless systematic reanalysis is facilitated. We have translated our observations into considerations for systematic and ad hoc reanalysis in routine genetic care.

Indexed as

ExomeRare DiseasesChildExome SequencingGenetic TestingHumansSequence Analysis, DNAWorkflowDiagnostic implementation of recommended ACMG guidelineLongitudinal follow-up of systematic cohortNGS-based resequencingRare diseaseSystematic reanalysis

Identifiers

PMID35710456
PMCPMC9204949
OpenAlexW4283017816

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.