ArticleResearch square2024
Rapid Genome Sequencing Shows Diagnostic Utility In Infants With Congenital Heart Defects.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth defect and a leading cause of infant mortality. CHD often has a genetic etiology and recent studies demonstrate utility in genetic testing. In clinical practice, decisions around genetic testing choices continue to evolve, and the incorporation of rapid genome sequencing (rGS) in CHD has not been well studied. Though smaller studies demonstrate the value of rGS, they also highlight the burden of results interpretation. We analyze genetic testing in CHD at two time-points, in 2018 and 2022-2023, across a change in clinical testing guidelines from chromosome microarray (CMA) to rGS. Analysis of 421 hospitalized infants with CHD demonstrated consistent genetic testing across time. Overall, after incorporation of rGS in 2022-2023, the diagnostic yield was 6.8% higher compared to 2018, and this pattern was consistent across all patient subtypes analyzed. In 2018, CMA was the most common test performed, with diagnostic results for CHD in 14.3%, while in 2022-2023, rGS was the most frequent test performed, with results diagnostic for CHD in 16.9%. Additionally, rGS identified 44% more unique genetic diagnoses than CMA. This is the largest study to highlight the value of rGS in CHD and has important implications for management.
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.