ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2024
Do we care? Reporting of genetic diagnoses in multidisciplinary intellectual disability care: a retrospective chart review.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in understanding the etiology of intellectual disability (ID) has led to insights in potential (targeted) treatments and personalized care. Implications of ID on health are often complex and require a multidisciplinary approach. The aim was to investigate the reporting of genetic diagnoses in multidisciplinary ID care and to identify associated clinical and demographic factors.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed on a randomly selected sample of individuals (n = 380) of a large ID care organization in the Netherlands. Data on genetic etiology, including genetic testing and diagnoses, and clinical and demographic characteristics were collected from files held by multidisciplinary team members.
resultsReports on genetic etiology were available in 40% of the study sample (n = 151), with a genetic diagnosis recorded in 34% (n = 51), which is 13% of the total sample. In those with reported genetic diagnoses, this was reported in 90% of medical, 39% of psychodiagnostic, and 75% of professional caregivers' files. Older age, mild ID, and the legal representative not being a family member were associated with less reported information on genetic etiology.
conclusionsThis study revealed that genetic diagnoses were often not reported in ID care files. Recommendations were formulated to reduce delay in diagnosis, and enable personalized care for individuals with ID.
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.