ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Evaluating first-line genetic testing strategies for inpatients with congenital heart defects.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating first-line genetic testing strategies for inpatients with congenital heart defects.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic testing strategies used to determine the etiology of congenital heart disease/defects (CHD/CHDs) vary between and within institutions, leading to potentially missed diagnostic opportunities. There has been little investigation comparing the diagnostic utility of gene panels among more comprehensive strategies used in the genetic evaluation of patients with CHD. In this descriptive study, we investigated the diagnostic yields of different genetic testing strategies in a real-world cohort of 263 patients with CHDs with genetic diagnoses. We counterfactually determined the diagnostic yield of a virtual gene panel designed for this study. We compared the diagnostic yield of the gene panel to other testing strategies, including chromosomal microarray (CMA), CMA + the gene panel, and genome sequencing. We assessed diagnostic yield differences according to clinical presentations to determine if phenotypes can inform optimal testing strategies. The virtual gene panel would have identified 51.3% of genetic disorders in this cohort, and 25.9% of genetic disorders would have remained undetected; another 22.8% may have needed additional testing to fully characterize the diagnoses. A combined approach of the virtual gene panel and CMA increased the diagnostic yield compared with panel-only testing or CMA alone (87.8% vs. 51.3% and 63.1%, respectively). The gene panel plus CMA would have increased the diagnostic yield by 24%-35% compared with CMA or panel testing alone in patients with extracardiac anomalies, 19%-41% in syndromic patients, and 0%-70% across CHD classifications. This combined approach also eliminated the potential need for follow-up testing; however, genome sequencing had a higher diagnostic yield across all clinical presentations (99.6%). CHD gene panels and CMA used individually or in combination are suboptimal first-line testing strategies, missing up to 36.5% of genetic disorders in our sample. Given the wide spectrum of phenotypes and genetic etiologies, our results support consideration of standardized genome sequencing for patients with CHDs.
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.