ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Consensus recommendations for next-generation sequencing-based genetic testing in Rare Neurological diseases.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Genomics cycle: discover, diagnose, interpret, act.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We recently established an external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for next-generation sequencing (NGS) diagnostics in rare neurological disorders (RND) in collaboration with the EMQN. The first assessment rounds revealed limitations and variability in the quality and completeness of genetic testing reports. To improve and harmonize reporting in NGS-based diagnostics for RND, we identified 28 topics requiring recommendations based on EQA findings. These topics were grouped into four areas: clinical information, interpretation, methodology, and reporting. A team of 31 experts with relevant expertise was formed. Using an adapted Delphi approach, two rounds of surveys were conducted to prioritize the topics. Subsequently, area-specific expert groups met to formulate recommendations, followed by a final approval round using the five-finger consensus method involving all experts. In both Delphi rounds, all topics were rated as either very important (n = 12) or important (n = 16), and all were advanced for recommendation development. Consensus recommendations were achieved for 27 of the 28 topics. These include guidance on gene panel composition and updating, addressing disease-specific limitations of NGS (e.g., repeat expansion disorders), defining minimal quality parameters, and promoting sharing of variant interpretations. Each recommendation is supported by real-world examples. Due to differences in national healthcare frameworks and policies, consensus could not be reached regarding which patients should or should not undergo NGS testing. The dissemination of these recommendations is expected to improve the quality of genetic testing and reporting in RND diagnostics, promoting harmonization across laboratories and enabling easier comparison and interpretation of genetic testing reports.
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.