A systematic review of the assessment of the clinical utility of genomic sequencing: Implications of the lack of standard definitions and measures of clinical utility
Open accessAbstract
Purpose Exome sequencing (ES) and genome sequencing (GS) are diagnostic tests for rare genetic diseases. Studies report clinical utility of ES/GS. The goal of this systematic review is to establish how clinical utility is defined and measured in studies evaluating the impacts of ES/GS results for pediatric patients. Methods Relevant articles were identified in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies assessed clinical utility of ES/GS for pediatric patients published before 2021. Other relevant articles were added based on articles' references. Articles were coded to assess definitions and measures of clinical utility. Results Of 1346 articles, 83 articles met eligibility criteria. Clinical utility was not clearly defined in 19% of studies and 92% did not use an explicit measure of clinical utility. When present, definitions of clinical utility diverged from recommended definitions and varied greatly, from narrow (diagnostic yield of ES/GS) to broad (including decisions about withdrawal of care/palliative care and/or impacts on other family members). Conclusion Clinical utility is used to guide policy and practice decisions about test use. The lack of a standard definition of clinical utility of ES/GS may lead to under- or overestimations of clinical utility, complicating policymaking and raising ethical issues.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Despite the theoretical appeal, systematic reviews report inconsistent findings regarding the clinical utility of nutrigenetic testing.
“However, despite the theoretical appeal, systematic reviews report inconsistent findings regarding the clinical utility of nutrigenetic testing [159].”
From The Seven Methods for the Evaluation of Nutritional Status—ABCDEFG: Narrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [159]
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283 · see citing works
Rapid whole-genome sequencing decreases infant morbidity and cost of hospitalization
Farnaes, L., Hildreth, A., Sweeney, N. M., Clark, M. M., Chowdhury, S., Nahas, S., Cakici, J. A., Benson, W., Kaplan, R. H., Kronick, R., et al. (2018) · npj Genomic Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41525-018-0049-4 · Cited by 445 · see citing works
Meeting the challenges of implementing rapid genomic testing in acute pediatric care.
Stark, Z., Lunke, S., Brett, G. R., Tan, N. B., Stapleton, R., Kumble, S., Yeung, A., Phelan, D. G., Chong, B., Fanjul-Fernandez, M., et al. (2018) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2018.37 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Rapid whole genome sequencing has clinical utility in children in the PICU
Sanford, E. F., Clark, M. M., Farnaes, L., Williams, M. R., Perry, J. C., Ingulli, E. G., Sweeney, N. M., Doshi, A., Gold, J. J., Briggs, B., et al. (2019) · Pediatric Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000002056 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Palmer, E. E., Schofield, D., Shrestha, R., Kandula, T., Macintosh, R., Lawson, J. A., Andrews, I., Sampaio, H., Johnson, A. M., Farrar, M. A., et al. (2018) · Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine · doi:10.1002/mgg3.355 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Seven Methods for the Evaluation of Nutritional Status—ABCDEFG: Narrative Review
Zambrano-Villacres, R., Arteaga-Pazmiño, C., Guevara Castillo, W. D., Herrera-Fontana, M. E., Domínguez Brito, L. D., Becerra Granados, L. M., Recoba-Obregón, P. E., Rodríguez-Veintimilla, D., Bressi, V., Andrade-Molina, D., et al. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16020845 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Azuelos, C., Marquis, M.-A., & Laberge, A.-M.
- Affiliations
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Laberge, Anne-Marie
- Venue
- European Journal of Medical Genetics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-04
- Volume
- 68
- Pages
- 104925
- ISSN
- 1769-7212 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4392355648
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 0.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Medical Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Connective tissue disorders research
- Keywords
- clinical utility, genome sequencing, exome sequencing, rare genetic disorders, pediatric patients, diagnostic yield, genetic testing policy, ethics of genetic testing
- MeSH terms
- Whole Genome Sequencing, Exome Sequencing, Child, Chromosome Mapping, Genetic Testing, Humans, Genomics, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Rare Diseases
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review