ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Clinical exome sequencing by general pediatricians: high clinical utility and no evidence of inappropriate testing.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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.
- Adult genomic medicine: lessons from a multisite study of 2700 patients.Genome medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Genetic disorders account for a large percentage of admissions and outpatient visits to children's hospitals around the world. Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is a valuable diagnostic tool in the workup of these disorders; however, it is not routinely requested by general pediatricians. This may represent a missed opportunity to increase patient access to this powerful diagnostic tool. In our institution, general pediatricians can directly order CES. In this context, this study aims to evaluate the appropriateness of CES and its clinical utility when ordered by general pediatricians. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all CES tests ordered by general pediatricians in our institution between 2019 and 2023 and recorded their indications and results. General pediatricians were interviewed to evaluate how CES impacted the domains of clinical utility by assessing changes in management, communication, subsequent testing, and counseling. In addition, feedback was obtained, and barriers faced by general pediatricians to order CES were assessed. Results: The study cohort ( Conclusion: We show that CES ordered by general pediatricians is appropriately indicated and provides a diagnostic yield comparable to that requested by specialists. In addition, we note the high clinical utility of positive results as judged by the ordering pediatricians. The findings of this study can empower general pediatricians to advocate for expanded CES adoption to improve patient access and shorten their diagnostic odyssey.
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.