Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42146892›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Genetics2026

Three Years of a New Multidisciplinary Adult Neurogenetics Clinic in Singapore.

Kaavya Narasimhalu, Anushika Raheja, Breana Cham, Celeste Y T Chen, Sylvia Kam, Eng-King Tan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kaavya NarasimhaluDepartment of Neurology, National Neuroscience Institute (Singapore General Hospital campus), Singapore; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6116-3020
Anushika RahejaDepartment of Neurology, National Neuroscience Institute (Singapore General Hospital campus), Singapore; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9902-7225
Breana ChamGenetics Service, Department of Paediatrics, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2915-9846
Celeste Y T ChenGenetics Service, Department of Paediatrics, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3117-3582
Sylvia KamGenetics Service, Department of Paediatrics, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7704-1917
Eng-King TanDepartment of Neurology, National Neuroscience Institute (Singapore General Hospital campus), Singapore; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2977-9743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic testing in neurology is playing an increasingly important role because of advances in sequencing technologies and the availability of targeted therapeutic options. In Singapore, clinical practice guidelines introduced in 2018 required genetic counseling as a part of clinical genetic testing, and a moratorium implemented in 2021 limited the use of genetic results to determine insurability. In response to these developments, we established a neurogenetics clinic staffed jointly by a neurologist and genetic counselor in September 2020. The objective of this study was to describe the patient population, referral patterns, and factors associated with the decision to undergo genetic testing and evaluate downstream management changes. We conducted a retrospective cohort review of adult patients seen at the Singapore General Hospital neurogenetics clinic between September 2020 and December 2023. Demographic, clinical, and referral data were collected, along with details on testing decisions, type of genetic tests performed, and outcomes. Logistic regression was used to explore demographic or referral factors associated with genetic testing uptake. A total of 164 patients were evaluated; 128 (78%) proceeded with genetic testing. Among the 36 who declined, cost was the predominant reason (72%), followed by insurability concerns (11%), perceived lack of clinical utility (8%), and not wishing to know the diagnosis (8%). Logistic regression showed no significant demographic or referral-related predictors of testing uptake. Of those tested, 38% had pathogenic/likely pathogenic results, 11% had variants of uncertain significance, and 51% had negative results. Clinical management was modified in 90% of those with pathogenic/likely pathogenic results and 79% with uncertain variants. Our findings demonstrate a high uptake of genetic testing in an adult neurogenetics clinic. Financial barriers remain the most significant deterrent. Genetic results had a direct impact on clinical care for most diagnosed patients, highlighting substantial clinical utility. Hence, reducing financial barriers will be essential as genetic testing becomes increasingly central to diagnosis, treatment, and management of neurologic disorders.

Identifiers

PMID42146892
PMCPMC13174566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.