Cited by 8Genomics and Rare DiseasesMedical and Health Sciences ResearchConnective tissue disorders research

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 access
Azuelos, Claudia, Marquis, Marc-Antoine, Laberge, Anne-Marie·2024·European Journal of Medical Genetics

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejmg.2024.104925

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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