Whole exome sequencing studies in epilepsy: A deep analysis of the published literature

To evaluate the quality of whole-exome sequencing (WES) reporting in the epilepsy literature. We aimed to assess the quality of reporting of WES in epilepsy. We compared studies based on journal type and if outcome reporting biases exist. We used a self-constructed benchmark to quantitatively analyze studies. We included 451 publications. Reporting was heterogeneous with poor reporting of (1) ACMG guideline application 13% and (2) Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) numbers in 3% of studies, 3) VUS in 19%. Predictors of reporting included journal type and journal impact factor. Date of publication and publication type were not predictors of poor reporting. Pairwise comparisons of genetics versus neurology journals using relative risks yielded significant differences in reporting of ACMG guideline application (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.04-3.38); HPO numbers (RR 8.62, 95% CI 1.08-63.37) and deposition of findings to ClinVar (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.03-6.1). Reporting of WES literature is heterogeneous in quality, and poor reporting hinders collaboration and accession of data into large databases like OMIM and OrphaNet. This study highlights reporting bias in this area and, formal structural guidelines like the CONSORT guidelines used in the reporting of clinical trials are needed to address the issue.

Automated summary

This study evaluated the quality of reporting of whole-exome sequencing (WES) in the epilepsy literature. The findings showed heterogeneous reporting quality with poor reporting of certain aspects. Journal type and impact factor were predictors of reporting quality. Reporting bias was identified and the need for formal structural guidelines, similar to the CONSORT guidelines used in clinical trials reporting, was highlighted.