ReviewEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Systematic mapping of rare genetic disease studies using UK primary care electronic health records.
Review in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rare disease studies often rely on small, selected cohorts, are resource-intensive and difficult to scale. UK primary care electronic health record (EHR) databases provide population-based, longitudinal data, but their use for rare genetic disease research has not been systematically examined. Through systematic mapping of publications from five UK primary care EHR databases (CPRD, OPCRD, QResearch, SAIL Databank and THIN), we found that only 0.82% (47 of 5754) of studies reported on rare genetic diseases. Of these, 77% (36 of 47) linked to external datasets. Study designs included case-control, cross-sectional and cohort studies. Cohort designs predominated, often with individual-level matched comparators. Case ascertainment was primarily based on routinely recorded diagnostic codes. Most studies examined a single disease, collectively encompassing 23 conditions. There was a skew towards multisystem, neurological, autosomal dominant and single-gene disorders, with relatively higher population frequencies and therapeutic tractability. Rare disease sample sizes ranged from 21 to 5059 (median 392). Important insights were revealed into phenotypic variation, phenotype expansion, complications and management outcomes, including findings not readily identifiable in traditional studies. Examples include higher prevalence of hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia in females, consistent with sex-modified phenotypic expression; non-skeletal complications and premature mortality in X-linked hypophosphataemia; and elevated malignancy risk in myotonic dystrophy type 1 with type 2 diabetes, potentially attenuated by metformin. In conclusion, UK primary care EHR databases are markedly underutilised for rare genetic diseases. For many conditions, limited availability of diagnostic codes is a constraint. However, their demonstrated capacity, scale, scope and population representativeness support wider use.
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.