ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024
Towards solving the genetic diagnosis odyssey in Iranian patients with congenital anomalies.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular analysis of individuals with suspected 46,XY differences of sex development in a homogenous and understudied population.Human molecular genetics · 2026Article
- Identification of a putative founder effect involving the HACE1:c.1396C>T variant in two Iranian families and review of reported cases.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Optimizing genetic testing strategies for congenital anomalies in Iran.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Genomic testing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC).European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the underlying causes of congenital anomalies (CAs) can be a complex diagnostic journey. We aimed to assess the efficiency of exome sequencing (ES) and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in patients with CAs among a population with a high fraction of consanguineous marriage. Depending on the patient's symptoms and family history, karyotype/Quantitative Fluorescence- Polymerase Chain Reaction (QF-PCR) (n = 84), CMA (n = 81), ES (n = 79) or combined CMA and ES (n = 24) were performed on 168 probands (66 prenatal and 102 postnatal) with CAs. Twelve (14.28%) probands were diagnosed by karyotype/QF-PCR and seven (8.64%) others were diagnosed by CMA. ES findings were conclusive in 39 (49.36%) families, and 61.90% of them were novel variants. Also, 64.28% of these variants were identified in genes that follow recessive inheritance in CAs. The diagnostic rate (DR) of ES was significantly higher than that of CMA in children from consanguineous families (P = 0·0001). The highest DR by CMA was obtained in the non-consanguineous postnatal subgroup and by ES in the consanguineous prenatal subgroup. In a population that is highly consanguineous, our results suggest that ES may have a higher diagnostic yield than CMA and should be considered as the first-tier test in the evaluation of patients with congenital anomalies.
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.