ArticleScientific reports2022
Five years' experience of the clinical exome sequencing in a Spanish single center.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A global survey of systems biology-based predictions of gene-rare disease associations to enhance new diagnoses.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Computationally resolved neuroprogenitor cell biomarkers associate with human disorders.Stem cell reports · 2025Article
- Clinical Exome Sequencing in Pediatric Patients.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays, exome sequencing is a robust and cost-efficient genetic diagnostic tool already implemented in many clinical laboratories. Despite it has undoubtedly improved our diagnostic capacity and has allowed the discovery of many new Mendelian-disease genes, it only provides a molecular diagnosis in up to 25-30% of cases. Here, we comprehensively evaluate the results of a large sample set of 4974 clinical exomes performed in our laboratory over a period of 5 years, showing a global diagnostic rate of 24.62% (1391/4974). For the evaluation we establish different groups of diseases and demonstrate how the diagnostic rate is not only dependent on the analyzed group of diseases (43.12% in ophthalmological cases vs 16.61% in neurological cases) but on the specific disorder (47.49% in retinal dystrophies vs 24.02% in optic atrophy; 18.88% in neuropathies/paraparesias vs 11.43% in dementias). We also detail the most frequent mutated genes within each group of disorders and discuss, on our experience, further investigations and directions needed for the benefit of patients.
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.