ArticleCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine2026
Rapid Genome Sequencing Shows Diagnostic Utility in Infants With Congenital Heart Defects.
Article in Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic yield of exome and genome sequencing for critically ill pediatric cardiac patients.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Case Report: Dual molecular diagnosis in complex congenital heart disease in an Ecuadorian patient with supravalvar aortic stenosis and pulmonary valve stenosis carrying pathogenic variants inFrontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Exome and Genome Sequencing for Critically Ill Pediatric Cardiac Patients.Research square · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCongenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth defect and a leading cause of infant mortality. CHD often has a genetic cause, and recent studies demonstrate the utility of genetic testing. In clinical practice, genetic testing continues to evolve, and the incorporation of rapid genome sequencing (rGS) in CHD is a recent development that requires evaluation. Although smaller studies demonstrate the value of rGS, they also highlight the burden of results interpretation.
methodsWe analyzed genetic testing in CHD at 2 time points, in 2018 and from 2022 to 2023, across a change in clinical testing guidelines from chromosome microarray to rGS.
resultsIn an analysis of 421 hospitalized infants with CHD, genetic testing was performed in 77.7%, and the rate was consistent across time and in all patient subtypes analyzed. There was a significant shift in testing modalities, where in 2018, chromosome microarray was the most common test performed, with diagnostic results for CHD in 14.3%, whereas in 2022 to 2023, rGS was the most frequent test performed, with results diagnostic for CHD in 16.9%. In addition, rGS identified 44% more unique genetic diagnoses than chromosome microarray.
conclusionsThis is the most extensive study to highlight the value of rGS in patients with CHD. These findings have important implications for CHD patient management.
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.