ArticleJournal of vitreoretinal diseases2020
Feasibility and Efficacy of Same-Day, In-Office Genetic Testing for Inherited Retinal Diseases.
Article in Journal of vitreoretinal diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This article analyzes 2 practice patterns our institution uses for genetic testing of patients with inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) and compares testing completion and diagnostic yield rates. Methods: A retrospective, consecutive chart review series was conducted of patients with a clinically diagnosed rod-mediated IRD. All IRDs were diagnosed between 2 intervals: November 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016 (referral to a medical genetics clinic for testing) or December 1, 2016, through December 30, 2017 (same-day, in-office genetic testing). Results: A total of 189 patients were included in the study. Of patients who received an out-of-office referral for genetic testing, 10 of 84 (12%) patients proceeded with testing, whereas 74 of 84 (88%) patients did not complete testing. For patients who received in-office genetic testing, 104 of 105 (99%) completed testing. The difference in test completion was statistically significant ( Conclusions: In-office genetic testing is a novel practice pattern that provides a more consistent and accessible method for IRD genetic diagnosis. Compared with an out-of-office referral for genetic testing, in-office genetic testing offers a similar rate of causative gene mutation identification but a greatly higher rate of test completion, therefore potentially offering a much higher yield for genetic diagnosis of IRDs.
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.