ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Current approach to genetic testing and genetic evaluation referrals for adults with congenital heart disease.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distribution, recognition and clinical implications of syndromic conditions in adults with congenital heart disease.Open heart · 2026Article
- Current and future diagnostics of congenital heart disease (CHD).Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital anomaly. Up to 33% have an identifiable genetic etiology. Improved medical and surgical management of CHD has translated into longer life expectancy and a rapidly growing population of adults living with CHD. The adult CHD (ACHD) population did not have access during childhood to the genetic technologies available today and therefore have not had a robust genetic evaluation that is currently recommended for infants with CHD. Given this potential benefit; the aims of this study were to determine how ACHD cardiologists offer genetics services to patients and identify the indications that influence decision-making for genetics care. Methods: We performed a descriptive cross-sectional study of ACHD cardiologists. A study-developed questionnaire was distributed via emailed REDCap link. The recruitment email was sent to 104 potential respondents. The survey was open from 06/2022 to 01/2023. Results: Thirty-five cardiologists participated in the study (response rate of 34%). Most cardiologists identified as white (77%) and male (66%). Cardiologists were more likely to refer patients to genetics (91%) than to order testing themselves (57%). Of the testing ordered, chromosomal testing (55%) was ordered more than gene sequencing (14%). Most cardiologists would refer a patient with a conotruncal lesion (interrupted aortic arch) over other indications for a genetics evaluation. There were more reported barriers to ordering genetic testing (66%) compared to referring to genetics for a genetics evaluation (23%). Cardiologists were more confident recognizing features suggestive of a genetic syndrome than ordering the correct test ( Conclusion: Testing for microdeletion syndromes is being offered and completed in the ACHD population, however testing for single-gene disorders associated with CHD is being under-utilized. Developing guidelines for genetic testing in adults with CHD could increase access to genetic services, impact medical management, reduce uncertainty regarding prognosis, and inform recurrence risk estimates.
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.