ArticleMolecular syndromology2025
Clinical and Molecular Evaluation of Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome with the BWSICS Score.
Article in Molecular syndromology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS, MIM#130650) is an overgrowth syndrome characterized by macroglossia, omphalocele, macrosomia, and a predisposition to neoplasia. The etiology of BWS involves genetic and epigenetic alterations in the 11p15 region of the genome. In this study, we investigated how the International Consensus Clinical Scoring System (BWSICS) score can be used in clinical and molecular evaluations and examined its contribution to diagnostic processes. Methods: This retrospective study included BWS patients who have been followed up in the pediatric genetics clinic of a center in the last 10 years. Clinical and molecular outcomes including chromosome analysis, microarray analysis, and MS-MLPA testing were evaluated. BWSICS scores were calculated for each patient based on their clinical symptoms. Results: The study evaluated 18 patients who met BWS diagnostic criteria aged between 1 day and 10 years. The main presentations were macroglossia in 4 patients, omphalocele with macroglossia in 5 patients, and hypoglycemia in 2 patients and all but 1 patient was macrosomia. Significant congenital malformations included omphalocele and visceromegaly in 5 patients each. Hepatoblastoma was observed in 1 patient and 1 patient died due to sepsis. Two patients had autism spectrum disorder while the others had normal neuromotor development. According to the BWSICS, patients' scores ranged from 5 to 11. Molecular analysis revealed methylation alterations in 13/16 patients. Conclusion: This study examined the effectiveness of the BWSICS score in the diagnosis and follow-up of BWS in combination with clinical and molecular evaluation. This score provides a broad assessment in the diagnosis of BWS and can be considered as an important tool in clinical practice.
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.