Trial reportGenome medicine2026
A nationwide prospective randomized trial for diagnosing developmental disorders demonstrates genome sequencing outperforms standard of care.
Trial report in Genome medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07051213 (The Belgian Genome Resource to Resolve Rare Diseases), which is not on this 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.
The Belgian Genome Resource to Resolve Rare Diseases
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
37 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExome (ES) or genome (GS) sequencing are recommended as first- or second-tier molecular tests for patients with developmental disorders (DD), but the clinical utility of GS continues to be debated.
methodsThis prospective randomized trial involving all Belgian human genetics centers compared the standard of care (SoC) - combining ES and chromosomal microarray analysis or shallow GS - with GS for 567 individuals with unexplained DD. The study was retrospectively registered.
resultsThe diagnostic yield of GS was 39.8% (113/284) vs. 30% for SoC (85/283) (p = 0.015), mainly due to an increased detection of single nucleotide variants and indels (+ 8.7%). GS also enabled the detection of three non-coding (potential) pathogenic variants. Across both study arms, the diagnostic yield was higher for females (45.5%, 97/213) compared to males (28.5%, 101/354) (p < 0.001). Upon correction for the sex distribution and analytical differences between the study arms, the diagnostic yield difference between GS and SoC was reduced to 7.3% (p = 0.069). De novo variants were found for 23.6% of patients. Analysis of inherited variants in genes associated with autosomal dominant phenotypes contributed more to the diagnostic yield (3.9%) than X-linked variants (1.9%), and to a similar extent as autosomal recessive variants (4.1%).
conclusionsThis nationwide study indicates GS outperforms SoC for the diagnosis of patients with DD in a decentralized hospital setting and well-characterized cohort. The results also highlight the importance of evaluating autosomal dominant inherited variants in genomics analyses for DD.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07051213, 03-07-2025).
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.