Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36195708›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2022

Applying the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) to genome sequencing: further evidence of validity.

Robin Z Hayeems, Stephanie Luca, Anna C E Hurst, Meagan Cochran, Chelsea Owens, Alomgir Hossain, Lauren Chad, M Stephen Meyn, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Wendy J Ungar and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Poison exon annotations improve the yield of clinically relevant variants in genomic diagnostic testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023
    Article
  7. Diagnostic genomic sequencing in critically ill children.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2023
    Article
  8. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Robin Z HayeemsChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. robin.hayeems@sickkids.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-8004
Stephanie LucaChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1057-1013
Anna C E HurstUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9765-9703
Meagan CochranHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Chelsea OwensHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0954-4832
Alomgir HossainBiostatistics, Design and Analysis Unit, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lauren ChadDivision of Clinical and Metabolic Genetics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
M Stephen MeynCenter for Human Genomics and Precision Medicine, The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Eleanor PullenayegumChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Wendy J UngarChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0762-0101
David BickHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8750-306X
Hospital for Sick Children · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology · USGenomics England · GBUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

CIHR PJT-152880
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome sequencing (GS) outperforms other rare disease diagnostics, but standardized approaches to assessing its clinical utility are limited. This study assessed the validity of the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE), a novel tool for assessing the utility of genetic testing from a clinician's perspective, for GS. C-GUIDE ratings were completed for patients who received GS results. For each patient, total C-GUIDE and single item global scores were calculated. Construct validity was assessed using linear regression to determine the association between C-GUIDE total and global item scores and measure the effects of potential explanatory variables. Ratings were completed for 67 pediatric and 36 adult patients. GS indications were neurological for 70.9% and results were diagnostic for 28.2%. When the C-GUIDE assessed primary (PV), secondary (SV), and pharmacogenomic (PGx) variants, on average, a one unit increase in the global item score was associated with an increase of 7.3 in the C-GUIDE score (p < 0.05). Diagnostic results were associated with an increase in C-GUIDE score of 5.0 compared to non-diagnostic results (p < 0.05) and an increase of one SV was associated with an increase of 2.5 (p < 0.05). For children, decreased age of one year was associated with an increase in C-GUIDE score of 0.3 (p < 0.05). Findings provide evidence that C-GUIDE measures the construct of clinical utility in pediatric and adult rare disease populations and is sensitive to changes in utility related to variant type. Quantifying the clinical utility of GS using C-GUIDE can inform efforts to optimize its use in patient care.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingRare DiseasesAdultBase SequenceChildChromosome MappingHumans

Identifiers

PMID36195708
PMCPMC9712646
OpenAlexW4301179867

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.