4.6 Review

Array CGH in patients with learning disability (mental retardation) and congenital anomalies: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies and 13,926 subjects

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 139-146

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318194ee8f

Keywords

learning disability; mental retardation; array-based comparative genomic hybridization; microarrays; genetic testing

Funding

  1. UKGTN
  2. PHG Foundation
  3. MRC [MC_U105285807] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. British Heart Foundation [RG/08/014/24067] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_U105285807] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Array-based comparative genomic hybridization is being increasingly used in patients with learning disability (mental retardation) and congenital anomalies. In this article, we update our previous meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic and false-positive yields of this technology. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted investigating patients with learning disability and congenital anomalies in whom conventional cytogenetic analyses have proven negative. Nineteen studies (13,926 patients) were included of which 12 studies (13,464 patients) were published since our previous analysis. The overall diagnostic yield of causal abnormalities was 10% (95% confidence interval: 8-12%). The overall number needed to test to identify an extra causal abnormality was 10 (95% confidence interval: 8-13). The overall false-positive yield of noncausal abnormalities was 7% (95% confidence interval: 5-10%). This updated meta-analysis provides new evidence to support the use of array-based comparative genomic hybridization in investigating patients with learning disability and congenital anomalies in whom conventional cytogenetic tests have proven negative. However, given that this technology also identifies false positives at a similar rate to causal variants, caution in clinical practice should be advised. Genet Med 2009:11(3):139-146.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available