ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Clinical Genetic and Genomic Testing in Congenital Heart Disease and Cardiomyopathy.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease From Southern Africa.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2026Article
- The Role of Next-Generation Sequencing in Cardiovascular Disease: A New Era of Precision Cardiology.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Case Report: Dual molecular diagnosis in complex congenital heart disease in an Ecuadorian patient with supravalvar aortic stenosis and pulmonary valve stenosis carrying pathogenic variants inFrontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach of ECG Screening in Children and Adolescents: A Scoping Review (2005-2025).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluating first-line genetic testing strategies for inpatients with congenital heart defects.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Burden of Congenital Heart Anomalies in North Africa and the Middle East, 1990 to 2021: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Clinical characteristics and mortality risk factors in pediatric hypertrophic, restrictive, and rapidly progressive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a retrospective cohort study with follow-up.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- The molecular mechanisms of cardiac development and related diseases.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- Cardiovascular Diseases in Public Health: Chromosomal Abnormalities in Congenital Heart Disease Causing Sudden Cardiac Death in Children.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
Abstract
Congenital heart disease (CHD) and cardiomyopathies are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. These conditions are often caused by genetic factors, and recent research has shown that genetic and genomic testing can provide valuable information for patient care. By identifying genetic causes, healthcare providers can screen for other related health conditions, offer early interventions, estimate prognosis, select appropriate treatments, and assess the risk for family members. Genetic and genomic testing is now the standard of care in patients with CHD and cardiomyopathy. However, rapid advances in technology and greater availability of testing options have led to changes in recommendations for the most appropriate testing method. Several recent studies have investigated the utility of genetic testing in this changing landscape. This review summarizes the literature surrounding the clinical utility of genetic evaluation in patients with CHD and cardiomyopathy.
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.