ReviewEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Rapid genomic sequencing in the NICU: Who to test and why.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accessibility of rapid genomic sequencing (rGS), including rapid whole-exome sequencing (rWES) and rapid whole-genome sequencing (rWGS), is transforming care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) by enabling timely and precise diagnoses of genetic disorders with high diagnostic yield and significant impact on clinical management. However, determining which infants should undergo sequencing remains a major challenge, particularly in settings with limited genetic expertise and poor access to genomic resources. Currently, no single strategy optimizes diagnostic yield, equity, feasibility, and cost across all settings. We conducted a structured literature review to evaluate patient selection approaches for genomic sequencing in the NICU and synthesized findings from major studies comparing various inclusion-based and exclusion-based approaches. Across 39 included studies, all except one utilized phenotype-driven inclusion criteria based on, for example, congenital anomalies, neurological manifestations, multisystem disease, or unexplained critical illness, while only one study employed a predominantly exclusion-based, genotype first strategy. Studies were conducted primarily in tertiary or high-resource NICUs, highlighting ongoing disparities in access to genomic testing and specialist expertise. Future research should focus on prospective comparisons of selection frameworks and the development of scalable implementation models that support equitable genomic care in NICU populations.
Identifiers
42562942What 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.