Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36114283›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2023

The performance of genome sequencing as a first-tier test for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Bart P G H van der Sanden, Gaby Schobers, Jordi Corominas Galbany, David A Koolen, Margje Sinnema, Jeroen van Reeuwijk, Connie T R M Stumpel, Tjitske Kleefstra, Bert B A de Vries, Martina Ruiterkamp-Versteeg and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Identification of biallelic loss-of-functionJournal of medical genetics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Determinants of DNA-sequence-based Diagnostic Yield in the CSER Consortium.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Bart P G H van der Sanden *Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0546-1351
Gaby Schobers *Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jordi Corominas Galbany *Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
David A KoolenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Margje SinnemaDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jeroen van ReeuwijkDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0658-4399
Connie T R M StumpelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tjitske KleefstraDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bert B A de VriesDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0000-2917
Martina Ruiterkamp-VersteegDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nico LeijstenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michael KwintDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ronny DerksDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hilde SwinkelsDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Amber den OudenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rolph PfundtDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tuula RinneDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4350-8106
Nicole de LeeuwDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9796-3342
Alexander P StegmannDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9736-7137
Servi J StevensDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8769-3150
Arthur van den WijngaardDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Han G BrunnerDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Helger G YntemaDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3877-6328
Christian GilissenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1693-9699
Marcel R NelenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lisenka E L M VissersDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. lisenka.vissers@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6470-5497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome sequencing (GS) can identify novel diagnoses for patients who remain undiagnosed after routine diagnostic procedures. We tested whether GS is a better first-tier genetic diagnostic test than current standard of care (SOC) by assessing the technical and clinical validity of GS for patients with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). We performed both GS and exome sequencing in 150 consecutive NDD patient-parent trios. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, calculated from disease-causing variants affecting exonic sequence of known NDD genes. GS (30%, n = 45) and SOC (28.7%, n = 43) had similar diagnostic yield. All 43 conclusive diagnoses obtained with SOC testing were also identified by GS. SOC, however, required integration of multiple test results to obtain these diagnoses. GS yielded two more conclusive diagnoses, and four more possible diagnoses than ES-based SOC (35 vs. 31). Interestingly, these six variants detected only by GS were copy number variants (CNVs). Our data demonstrate the technical and clinical validity of GS to serve as routine first-tier genetic test for patients with NDD. Although the additional diagnostic yield from GS is limited, GS comprehensively identified all variants in a single experiment, suggesting that GS constitutes a more efficient genetic diagnostic workflow.

Indexed as

Neurodevelopmental DisordersBase SequenceChromosome MappingExome SequencingGenetic TestingHumans

Identifiers

PMID36114283
PMCPMC9822884

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.