ArticleResearch square2026
Provider Perceptions of the Impact of Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing on Care and Management.
Article in Research square, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Rapid whole genome sequencing (rWGS) is emerging as the standard-of-care for critically ill neonates and children. In this study, we surveyed healthcare providers to explore the impact of rWGS on medical decision making, patient management, and communication with families. Patients and Methods: We designed a survey to measure provider perceived impact of rWGS in critically ill neonates and children sequenced at a single center, Primary Children's Hospital (Salt Lake City, UT). The survey was completed by the primary critical care provider or primary specialist provider following rWGS result return. Survey results were stratified by result type and unit. Results: The majority of results (81%, 140/172) were considered 'Useful' or 'Very useful' and increased clarity for the care team (52%, 89/171) and family (62%, 96/156). Providers identified at least one change in management for the majority of results (57%, 98/171). Conclusions: This study found positive provider perceptions for rWGS in both pediatric non-ICU and ICU hospitalizations. A majority of providers identified the rWGS results as useful, and impactful for management. Standardized evaluation of the care team's perception of clinical management at the time of result return is a helpful measure for understanding the clinical utility of rWGS. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: No clinical trial registry. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Utah (IRB_00131255) as an exempt study. A consent cover letter was utilized and consent to participate was given by completing and returning the questionnaire.
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.