ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2025
Genetic testing for oral clefts: reflections based on a single Brazilian public genetics service.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenomic medicine has allowed for an improvement in the diagnosis and molecular understanding of congenital defects. However, its implementation into routine clinical practice demands enormous challenges worldwide. This study describes the etiological diversity and access to genetic diagnosis of individuals with oral clefts (OC) at a single genetics service.
resultsThis cross-sectional and descriptive study analyzed primary records of the Brazilian Database on Craniofacial Anomalies from 2006 to 2019, before the National Policy of Comprehensive Care for People with Rare Diseases (NPCCPRD) implementation in this service. Among 103 individuals (51 Female and 52 Male), the proportion of syndromic OC (SOC) and non-syndromic OC (NSOC) was 73.8% and 26.2%, respectively, showing that NSOC seems not to be referred for genetic evaluation. Diagnosis occurred in 64/103 (62.13%) cases; 36/64 (56,25%) had clinical diagnoses, of which 27/36 were NSOC. The tests allowing a conclusive diagnosis were whole exome sequencing (WES) (11/20-55.00%), followed by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) (4/52-7.69%), Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (6/21-28.57%), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) (2/32-6.25%), and G-banding karyotype (6/72-8.33%). Age at diagnosis ranged from 0 to 46 years (mean = 9.56 /median = 7). Diagnostic investigations of 39/76 SOC cases are still ongoing, relying on clinical follow-up and genetic tests.
conclusionsEtiological diversity reinforces the need for different laboratory resources and clinical follow-up. These results and reflections about the need to implement Genomic Medicine are of universal interest. They also show the need to improve public health policies for genetic evaluation, diagnostic tests, and genetic counseling for an effective NPCCPRD.
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.