ArticleiScience2025
Appropriate time interval to update ambiguous genetic diagnosis in inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concealed cardiomyopathy in sudden childhood death: translation from molecular autopsy to family assessment.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary and Personalized Molecular Diagnosis to Solving Sudden Death During Sport.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Review
- Brugada syndrome in the forensic field: what do we know to date?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic analysis identified the cause of the disease in inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes. A clinically actionable genetic diagnosis requires an accurate interpretation following the current guidelines. Practically half of the genetic diagnoses remain inconclusive due to the identification of variants of uncertain significance. An update can help shed light on uncertain results. No specific time frame has been set for updating an ambiguous diagnosis. We carried out an analysis of the available reclassification/reinterpretation data concerning genetic diagnosis in inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes. We aim to determine an appropriate interval for updating a conclusive classification. Genetic diagnoses achieved without following current guidelines should be updated immediately. An ambiguous result obtained following the current guidelines should be updated no more than 5 years after the first analysis. There are still questions to be resolved regarding the legal responsibility or who should assume the economic cost of updating a genetic diagnosis.
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.