ArticleNPJ genomic medicine2024
Clinical genome sequencing in patients with suspected rare genetic disease in Peru.
Article in NPJ genomic medicine, 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.
- Perspective - The Role of Peripheral Outreach Programs for Genetic Disorders for Optimizing Healthcare.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Implementation of a medical genomics program for rare diseases in Uruguay.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is limited access to molecular genetic testing in most low- and middle-income countries. The iHope program provides clinical genome sequencing (cGS) to underserved individuals with signs or symptoms of rare genetic diseases and limited or no access to molecular genetic testing. Here we describe the performance and impact of cGS in 247 patients from three clinics in Peru. Although most patients had at least one genetic test prior to cGS (70.9%), the most frequent was karyotyping (53.4%). The diagnostic yield of cGS was 54.3%, with candidate variants reported in an additional 22.3% of patients. Clinical GS results impacted clinician diagnostic evaluation in 85.0% and genetic counseling in 72.1% of cases. Changes in management were reported in 71.3%, inclusive of referrals (64.7%), therapeutics (26.3%), laboratory or physiological testing (25.5%), imaging (19%), and palliative care (17.4%), suggesting that increased availability of genomic testing in Peru would enable improved patient management.
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.