ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2022
Applying the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) to genome sequencing: further evidence of validity.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The clinical utility of genome sequencing is multi-dimensional: experience from the Hong Kong Genome Project.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Determining the value of genomics in healthcare.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Determining the utility of diagnostic genomics: a conceptual framework.Human genomics · 2023Review
- 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 · 2023Article
- Diagnostic genomic sequencing in critically ill children.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2023Article
- Poison exon annotations improve the yield of clinically relevant variants in genomic diagnostic testing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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
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.