Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38707809›Full record

ArticleKidney international reports2024

Reclassification of Variants Following Renal Genetics Testing: Uncommon Yet Impactful for Diagnosis and Management.

Euyn Lim, Chloe Borden, Seysha Mehta, Mary-Beth Roberts, Sarah Mazzola, Fang Zhao, Xiangling Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney international reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing after Negative or Inconclusive Kidney Genes Panel Testing.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2026
    Article
  3. Beyond the acceptance decision: integrating genetic findings into lifelong living donor care.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  4. Structured Application of Genetic Testing in a Pediatric Kidney Clinic.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. The Role of Genetic Testing in Adult CKD.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Euyn LimCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Chloe BordenCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Seysha MehtaCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Mary-Beth RobertsCenter for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Medical Specialties Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Sarah MazzolaCenter for Personalized Genetic Healthcare, Medical Specialties Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Fang ZhaoDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Xiangling WangCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Genetic testing is increasingly utilized in nephrology practice, but limited real-world data exist on variant reclassification following renal genetics testing. Methods: A cohort of patients at the Cleveland Clinic Renal Genetics Clinic who underwent genetic testing through clinical laboratories was assessed with their clinical and laboratory data analyzed. Results: Between January 2019 and June 2023, 425 new patients with variable kidney disorders from 413 pedigrees completed genetic testing through 10 clinical laboratories, including 255 (60%) females with median (25th, 75th percentiles) age of 36 (22-54) years. Multigene panel was the most frequently used modality followed by single-gene testing, exome sequencing (ES), chromosomal microarray (CMA), and genome sequencing (GS). At initial report, 52% of patients had ≥1 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) with or without concurrent pathogenic variant(s). Twenty amendments were issued across 19 pedigrees involving 19 variants in 17 genes. The overall variant reclassification rate was 5%, with 63% being upgrades and 32% downgrades. Of the reclassified variants, 79% were initially reported as VUS. The median time-to-amendments from initial reports was 8.4 (4-27) months. Following the variant reclassifications, 60% of the patients received a new diagnosis or a change in diagnosis. Among these, 67% of patients received significant changes in clinical management. Conclusion: Variant reclassification following genetic testing is infrequent but important for diagnosis and management of patients with suspected genetic kidney disease. The majority of variant reclassifications involve VUS and are upgrades in clinically issued amended reports. Further studies are needed to investigate the predictors of such events.

Indexed as

diagnosis and managementkidney diseaserenal geneticsvariant of uncertain significancevariant reclassification

Identifiers

PMID38707809
PMCPMC11068948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.