SynthesisPituitary2022
Regional genotypic variations in normosmic congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism: our experience and systematic review.
Synthesis in Pituitary, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expanded Targeted-Exome Sequencing and Functional Validation Improve Molecular Diagnosis and Refine Genotype-Phenotype Correlations in Congenital Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism.Neuroendocrinology · 2026Article
- Identification of Novel Genetic Variants in a Cohort of Congenital Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism: Computational Analysis of Pathogenicity Predictions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Variety of genetic defects in GnRH and hypothalamic-pituitary signaling and development in normosmic patients with IHH.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Genetic architecture of congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism: insights from analysis of a Portuguese cohort.Human reproduction open · 2024Article
- Genetic variants of G-protein coupled receptors associated with pubertal disorders.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo describe phenotype-genotype data of Asian-Indian normosmic congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (nCHH) from our centre and perform a systematic review of genetic studies using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in nCHH.
methodsSixty-eight nCHH probands from our center, and 370 nCHH probands from published studies were included. Per-patient genetic variants were analyzed as per ACMG guidelines. Molecular diagnosis was defined as presence of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a known CHH gene following zygosity status as per known mode of genetic inheritance.
resultAt our centre molecular diagnosis was observed in 35.3% of probands {GNRHR:16.2%, FGFR1:7.3%, KISS1R:4.4%, GNRH1:2.9%, TACR3:2.9%, CHD7:1.4%}. Molecular diagnosis was observed more often (44.7% vs 14.3%, p = 0.026) with severe than partial reproductive-phenotype. The study adds 12 novel variants and suggests GNRHR p.Thr32Ala variant may have a founder effect. In per-patient systematic review (including our cohort), the molecular diagnosis was reached in 23.2%, ranging from 3.5 to 46.7% at different centers. The affected genes were FGFR1:6.4%, GNRHR:4.3%, PROKR2:3.6%, TACR3:1.8%, CHD7:1.6%, KISS1R:1.4%, GNRH1:1.4% and others (PROK2, SOX3, SOX10, SOX11, IL17RD, IGSF10, TAC3, ANOS1, oligogenic): < 1% each. FGFR1 was the most commonly affected gene in most cohorts except Asia, whereas PROKR2 (in China and Japan) and GNRHR (in India) were the commonest.
conclusion(s): The global molecular diagnosis rate was 23.2% in nCHH cohorts whereas that in our cohort was 35% with a higher rate (44.7%) in those with severe reproductive-phenotype. The most commonly affected gene in nCHH patients was FGFR1 globally while it was PROKR2 in East Asia and GNRHR in India.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.