ArticleAnnals of the Child Neurology Society2026
Advantages of Exome Sequencing Over Panel Testing for Individuals With a Seizure Indication.
Article in Annals of the Child Neurology Society, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Our aim was to investigate the advantages of exome sequencing versus panel testing for patients with unexplained seizures. Methods: We reviewed the diagnostic outcomes of exome sequencing by a commercial genetics laboratory for more than 16 000 individuals with a clinical history of seizures or suspected seizures. Results: Exome sequencing identified diagnostic variants (pathogenic and/or likely pathogenic; L/PATH) in 778 seizure-related genes, resulting in diagnoses in 4035 individuals (24.6% of the cohort). Of the 778 genes, 454 (58.4%) were not present on a comparison sample of six commercially available epilepsy panel tests. The analysis predicted that the epilepsy panels would have missed 52%-63% of diagnostic cases reported by exome sequencing. Nineteen percent (753/4035) of the cohort had a previous epilepsy panel. Exome sequencing added new diagnostic information in this panel-tested sub-cohort, including L/PATH variants not reported on the epilepsy panel (74.2% of patients) and L/PATH variants that were originally classified as variants of uncertain significance by the panel (11.2% of patients). Exome sequencing identified L/PATH variants likely to have immediate implications for clinical intervention in 17.9% of diagnostic cases and in 10.0% of cases with a previous nondiagnostic epilepsy panel. Significance: The data demonstrated limitations of epilepsy panels and several advantages of exome sequencing over panels for patients with unexplained seizures. Exome sequencing offered a higher diagnostic rate than previously published for panels and the identification of variants with implications for clinical intervention among patients with prior nondiagnostic epilepsy panels. Another advantage of exome sequencing was the identification of clinically relevant findings unrelated to seizures. Together, these data further support the use of exome sequencing as a first-tier test for patients with unexplained seizures and demonstrate the potential clinical benefits of comprehensive genetic testing. Trial Registration: Not applicable.
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.