ReviewJournal of neurology2023
Ordering genetic testing by neurologists: points to consider.
Review in Journal of neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of hereditary neurological disorders diagnosed by whole exome sequencing in Pakistani population: updates from 2014 to November 2024.Neurogenetics · 2025Pooled it
- Update and recommendations on genetic testing for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in clinical practice: a Brazilian expert view.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Incorporating genetics and genetic counselling in neurology clinics: a survey of neurologists' perceptions and current practices.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Molecular diagnostic approach to rare neurological diseases from a clinician viewpoint.Genomics & informatics · 2024Review
- Update on recent advances in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A significant challenge limiting the comprehensive utilization of genomic medicine is the lack of timely access to genetics specialists. Although neurologists see patients for whom genetic testing should be considered, the knowledge regarding the choice of the optimal genetic test for each case and the management of the test results are out of the scope of their everyday practice. In this review, we provide a step-by-step guide for non-geneticist physicians through the decision-making process when ordering diagnostic genetic testing for monogenic neurological diseases and when dealing with their results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37154893What 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.