ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2024
The impact of clinical genome sequencing in a global population with suspected rare genetic disease.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic pathways in developmental disorders: a decade-apart comparison of two multicenter cohorts (2012-2022).European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Inborn Errors of Immunity Genotype: A Retrospective Study from the United Arab Emirates.Journal of clinical immunology · 2026Article
- Implementation of exome sequencing for rare undiagnosed diseases in LMICs: the G2MC rare diseases exome sequencing pilot project.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Collaborative Genomics for Dystonia in Central and Eastern Europe: Successes Achieved, New Frontiers Ahead.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
- Implementation of a medical genomics program for rare diseases in Uruguay.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Rigorous genetic diagnosis review in natural history studies.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- The landscape of 605 genetically confirmed distinct rare diseases in a single center in Mexico (2005-2025).Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Mastering genetics for your clinic: A step-by-step guide.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- First-Tier Versus Last-Tier Trio Whole-Genome Sequencing for the Diagnosis of Pediatric-Onset Rare Diseases.Clinical genetics · 2025Article
- Bridging psychiatry and rare genetic diseases: a scoping review of therapeutic strategies and diagnostic delay paired with healthcare economic burden analysis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- The United Nations convention on rare diseases-A framework for research prioritization.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Obstacles to Early Diagnosis of Gaucher Disease.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Review
- Clinical genome sequencing in patients with suspected rare genetic disease in Peru.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
64 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is mounting evidence of the value of clinical genome sequencing (cGS) in individuals with suspected rare genetic disease (RGD), but cGS performance and impact on clinical care in a diverse population drawn from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not been investigated. The iHope program, a philanthropic cGS initiative, established a network of 24 clinical sites in eight countries through which it provided cGS to individuals with signs or symptoms of an RGD and constrained access to molecular testing. A total of 1,004 individuals (median age, 6.5 years; 53.5% male) with diverse ancestral backgrounds (51.8% non-majority European) were assessed from June 2016 to September 2021. The diagnostic yield of cGS was 41.4% (416/1,004), with individuals from LMIC sites 1.7 times more likely to receive a positive test result compared to HIC sites (LMIC 56.5% [195/345] vs. HIC 33.5% [221/659], OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.9-3.4, p < 0.0001). A change in diagnostic evaluation occurred in 76.9% (514/668) of individuals. Change of management, inclusive of specialty referrals, imaging and testing, therapeutic interventions, and palliative care, was reported in 41.4% (285/694) of individuals, which increased to 69.2% (480/694) when genetic counseling and avoidance of additional testing were also included. Individuals from LMIC sites were as likely as their HIC counterparts to experience a change in diagnostic evaluation (OR 6.1, 95% CI 1.1-∞, p = 0.05) and change of management (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.3, p = 0.49). Increased access to genomic testing may support diagnostic equity and the reduction of global health care disparities.
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.