Comparing the diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS and WES with standard genetic testing (SGT) in children with suspected genetic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis
===================================================================================================================================================================================

* Kimberley M.B. Tirrell
* Helen C. O’Neill

## 3.0 Abstract

**Importance** Rare genetic diseases are one of the leading causes of infant mortality worldwide. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) are relatively new techniques for diagnosing genetic diseases, that classic newborn screening (NBS) fails to detect.

**Objective** To systematically assess the diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS and WES, compared to standard genetic testing (SGT), in children with suspected genetic diseases, and discuss its impact on the expansion of NBS.

**Data Sources** EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references of included full-text articles were searched until 21st October 2021.

**Study Selection** Studies reporting the diagnostic yield or rate of change of management for WGS and/or WES were included. The meta-analysis included 43 of the original 1768 identified articles (2%).

**Data Extraction and Synthesis** Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. The quality of included papers was assessed using QUADAS-2, and a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to create pooled proportions and a pooled odds ratio.

**Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)** Diagnostic utility, as determined by the diagnostic yield, which is defined as P/LP variants with strong or moderate associations with the presenting clinical phenotype of the affected patient, and that were reported to the patient’s clinician. Clinical utility as defined by any change in clinical management (medically or surgically), determined through clinician questionnaires or Electronic Health Record reviews.

**Results** A total of 43 studies were included, comprising 6168 children. The pooled diagnostic utility of WES (0.40, 95% CI 0.34-0.45, *I2*=90%), was qualitatively greater than WGS (0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.39, *I2*=79%), and SGT (0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.25, *I2*=64%). The pooled clinical utility of WGS (0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.89, *I2*=93%), was qualitatively greater than WES (0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.81, *I2*=86%), while both were qualitatively greater than SGT (0.69, 95% CI 0.38-0.94).

**Conclusions and Relevance** Our evidence suggests that WGS/WES should be considered the first-line test for genetic diseases. There is reason to believe that WGS and WES should be included as part of NBS, however, more studies are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

## 4.0 Introduction

Genetic disorders, including monogenic diseases and chromosomal abnormalities, are one of the leading causes of infant mortality, particularly among those admitted to the neonatal and paediatric intensive care units.(1, 2) An estimated 400 million people worldwide are thought to suffer from a rare disease of which 80-85% are believed to have genetic origins. Approximately half of those affected by a rare disease are children, with 30% not surviving past their fifth birthday.(3, 4) It has been estimated that around 50% of patients with a genetic disorder are never diagnosed.(5) Although individually each genetic disease is rare, when combined, the estimated 6000-7000 diseases, are common and contribute significantly to infant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.(6, 7)

Disease progression of genetic disorders within children can be rapid, and without early etiological diagnosis, intervention and management decisions made are uninformed and often ineffective, exacerbate symptoms or cause adverse effects, and lead to delays in starting appropriate treatment.(8–10) Therefore, a quick, accurate diagnosis for children is vital to improve outcomes, and reduce morbidity and mortality.(10)

Attaining a diagnosis for every child with a suspected genetic disease remains a significant challenge, due to the genetic and phenotypic variation of such diseases. Many countries have implemented newborn screening (NBS) programmes in an effort to reduce infant mortality associated with rare diseases, however, these programmes, where implemented, fail to recognise and screen for many rare genetic diseases. Although the WHO have published guidelines for the inclusion of a condition in NBS programmes, there remains to be large disparities between the conditions screened for in many countries and their individual states.(11–14) Any abnormalities detected during screening can provide an early indication of a rare disease, however, any rare diseases not detectable through analytes, such as some rare genetic diseases, cannot be screened for. Expanding the list of conditions for NBS to include other rare diseases, not detected through analytes, would ensure a broader range of conditions can be rapidly diagnosed and treated, improving outcomes and reducing infant morbidity and mortality.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have rapidly advanced in recent years, and have shown great promise of new diagnostic potentials, due to their genetic and phenotypic approach. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) allow for simultaneous analysis of numerous genes associated with genetic disorders, an approach that is not currently utilised within NBS.(15) The speed at which these approaches can analyse genomic data and identify pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants, makes them prime candidates for the expansion of NBS, due to their capabilities of rapid, early diagnoses of additional disorders that are not currently screened for, and would benefit from early detection and subsequent treatment. Here, we report a literature review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS and WES, compared with standard genetic testing (SGT), in children (≤18 years) with suspected genetic diseases, and discuss the impact this has on the expansion of the NBS programme through WGS and WES.

## 5.0 Methods

### 5.1 Data sources and record identification

On 21st October 2021, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science with the MeSH terms (“Infant” or “Infant, Newborn” or “Child”), and (“Whole Genome Sequencing” or “Whole Exome Sequencing” or “Genetic Testing” or “High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing”), and (“Critical Illness” or “Intensive Care Units” or “Intensive Care, Neonatal” or “Intensive Care Units, Pediatric” or “Intensive Care Units, Neonatal” or “Critical Care”), and relevant key terms. We manually searched the references of included papers for any missed eligible papers. There were no date, language, or literature type restrictions on searches. Papers identified through database searches were imported into EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Boston, MA) for duplication removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text review. Full search strategies are available within the appendix (**Appendix II**).

### 5.2 Inclusion criteria and study eligibility

Studies that assessed the diagnostic utility or clinical utility (proportion of patients tested who had a change in clinical management upon receiving a diagnosis) of WGS and/or WES were eligible. Studies containing cohorts with specific disease types or clinical presentations, rather than a broad range of potential genetic diseases, probands over 18 years of age, already diagnosed or containing expired probands were excluded. Case reports, meeting/conference abstracts, and studies where full-texts were not available in English were also excluded. The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement (**Appendix I, Table 1**).(16)

### 5.3 Data extraction

Data extracted comprised of (1) the methodological information of the studies, including: first author, year of publication, objectives, sequencing method, sample size, and study country, (2) patient demographics, including: age of participants and rate of consanguinity, and (3) reported study outcomes, including: diagnostic yield, change in management, incidence of VUS, incidental findings, incidence of de novo variants, and turnaround time was extracted manually. Data was reviewed for completeness and accuracy by two authors with any disparities resolved by discussion and consensus. The PICOTS typology of the criteria for inclusion of studies in quantitative analyses was:

#### Patients

Data extraction was limited to critically ill children (aged less than 18 years) with a suspected genetic disease.

#### Intervention

WGS and/or WES

#### Comparator

Participants tested by WGS, WES and SGT were grouped and compared. SGT was treated as the Reference Standard.

#### Outcomes

Diagnostic utility and clinical utility. Diagnostic utility was determined by the diagnostic yield, which is defined as P/LP variants with strong or moderate associations with the presenting clinical phenotype of the affected patient, and that were reported to the patient’s clinician.(17) Clinical utility was defined as any change in clinical management (medically or surgically) as determined through clinician questionnaires or Electronic Health Record (EHR) reviews. Incidental findings and variants of uncertain significance, where available, were also extracted.(18)

#### Timing

Where more than one paper reported results from the same study cohort, we extracted the most recent data for diagnostic and clinical utility.

#### Settings

There were no setting restrictions.

### 5.4 Quality assessment

Quality assessment involved evaluating the risk of bias for each included study using the QUADAS-2 tool, a validated tool for assessing the risk of bias in primary diagnostic accuracy studies.(19) The QUADAS-2 tool enables the classification of studies into low risk, high risk or unclear risk based on the following domains: patient selection (bias as a result of the selection of participants and representativeness of the sample), index test (bias as a result of the conduction and interpretation of the index test), reference standard (bias as a result of the conduction and interpretation of the reference standard), and flow and timing (bias as a result of the time interval and any interventions between the index test and reference standard). Applicability of studies was also evaluated for the first three domains in each study and judged as “yes, no, or unclear”, indicating a low, high, and unclear risk of bias, respectively.

### 5.5 Statistical analysis

Meta-analysis was conducted using the ‘metaprop’ and ‘metan’ commands in Stata version 15.(20) We transformed proportions from individual studies by stabilizing the between-study variance, using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation procedure, before computing the weighted overall pooled estimates, using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effect model, with an estimate of heterogeneity being taken from the inverse-variance fixed-effect model.(21) 95% confidence intervals are based on exact binomial procedures (Clopper-Pearson interval). The chi-squared test was used to assess between-study heterogeneity, with I2 statistic values of 25%, 50%, and 75% interpreted as low, moderate, and severe heterogeneity, respectively.(22) Forest plots were used to summarize the individual study and pooled group meta-analysis statistics.

### 6.0 Results

### 6.1 Literature search results

WGS and WES are fast becoming commonplace methods for the diagnosis of genetic diseases. We compared the diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS and WES with that of SGT, including chromosomal microarray (CMA), Sanger sequencing, single-gene testing, panel testing, methylation studies, NBS, and others, as the standard of care for children with suspected genetic diseases. A total of 2635 records were identified through searches for studies assessing the use of WGS and WES in children with a wide range of suspected genetic diseases. Thirty-six of these records, comprising 5681 children, met the eligibility criteria. A further seven records were identified through manual searching of included records’ reference lists, bringing the total number of eligible, included records to forty-three, comprising 6168 children.(10, 23–64) Of the forty-three included studies, thirty-eight were case studies; five were randomized controlled trials.(35, 38, 41, 47, 60) The process and outcome of the literature search are presented in detail in **Figure 1**.

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F1)

Figure 1: Prisma (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram for meta-analysis of diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS and WES.

### 6.2 Meta-analysis results

Of the 43 included studies, 15/43 (35%) looked specifically at WGS, while 25/43 (53%) investigated WES. The characteristics of all forty-three included studies can be found in **Appendix I**, **Table 2**. The pooled diagnostic utility of WES was 0.40 (95% CI 0.34-0.45, 27 studies, 4238 children, *I2*=90%), which was qualitatively greater than WGS (0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.39, 17 studies, 1817 children, *I2*=79%), and SGT (0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.25, 6 studies, 669 children, *I2*=64%) (Figure 2). The pooled clinical utility of WGS was 0.74 (95% CI 0.56-0.89, 13 studies, 467 children, *I2*=93%), which was qualitatively greater than WES (0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.81, 18 studies, 648 children, *I2*=86%), and SGT (0.69, 95% CI 0.38-0.94, 2 studies, 12 children) (Figure 3). *I2* could not be assessed for SGT due to the small sample size of studies. Severe heterogeneity (*I2*>75%) within WGS and WES groups precluded statistical comparisons. Among studies that provided complete data for the diagnostic utility of WGS or WES and SGT, the pooled odds of diagnosis were 2.93 times greater for WGS/WES (P<0.01) (Figure 4). 31/43 (72%) studies reported the heritability of detected variants, these included P/LP variants, variants deemed to be an incidental finding, and VUS. A total of 596/1381 (43%) were de novo variants. Some studies opted out of reporting incidental findings, while others only returned incidental findings to patients and families who had consented. Of the eighteen studies opting to report incidental findings, a total of 66/1221 (5%) participants received such findings.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F2)

Figure 2: Forest plot of the diagnostic utility of WGS, WES, and standard genetic testing (SGT).

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F3)

Figure 3: Forest plot of the clinical utility of WGS, WES, and standard genetic testing (SGT).

![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/F4)

Figure 4: Forest plot of the odds ratio of WGS, WES, and standard genetic testing (SGT).

View this table:
[Table X:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/T1)

Table X: Included Study Characteristics

### 7.0 Discussion

Since the early 2010’s, WGS and WES have gained recognition for the diagnosis of genetic diseases, however, widespread clinical use and thorough guidelines still do not exist. This systematic review identified thirty-six publications, comprising a total of 5540 children, reporting the diagnostic or clinical utility of WGS and WES. The pooled diagnostic utility showed that WES (0.40, 95% CI 0.34-0.45, *I2*=90%), was qualitatively greater than WGS (0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.39, *I2*=79%), and SGT (0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.25, *I2*=64%). Only 6 (14%) included studies reported results of a comparator test, including CMA, Sanger sequencing, single gene tests, and gene panel testing. As such, comparisons of any statistical pooling were highly susceptible to confounding from factors; possible factors included: testing procedures, patient factors, such as consanguinity, eligibility criteria, or clinician input. This was evident within the severe levels of statistical heterogeneity between the study groups. These results suggest that CMA, Sanger sequencing, and other genetic tests, should no longer be considered the best genomic test for the diagnosis of children with suspected genetic disease, in terms of diagnostic utility; rather, WGS and WES should be considered the first-line genomic test.

While diagnostic utility is the primary measure of importance for a clinical diagnostic test, the clinical utility of WGS and WES is of high importance in order to improve the clinical outcomes of children with suspected genetic diseases. Forty-two (98%) of the included papers reported the diagnostic utility of WGS and/or WES, however, only thirty-one (72%) reported the clinical utility after diagnosis. The clinical utility of WGS and WES was measured in numerous ways throughout the studies, including clinician surveys, EHR reviews, or a combination of both. The heterogeneity within the clinical presentations and genetic origins of diseases, and the resulting numerous medical interventions, can result in a number of possible changes in medical management, thus increasing the difficulty of generalising measures of clinical utility. We defined clinical utility as any change in management within infants who have obtained a diagnosis from WGS, WES, or SGT, as determined through clinician survey and/or EHR review. Changes included further testing, transferral to palliative care, and withdrawal of support, but excluded genetic counselling and parental reproductive planning, as genetic counselling should be offered to all children and their families, regardless of diagnostic result, and reproductive planning for parents does not affect the diagnosed child’s clinical status. The pooled clinical utility showed that WGS (0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.89, *I2*=93%), was qualitatively greater than WES (0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.81, *I2*=86%), while both were qualitatively greater than SGT (0.69, 95% CI 0.38-0.94). However, the results showed severe heterogeneity (*I2*>75%) for WGS and WES, precluding a statistical comparison. Of the 6 (14%) papers to report results of a comparator test, only 2 (5%) reported outcomes of clinical management, which meant heterogeneity could not be calculated for the SGT group, and comparisons of statistical pooling would not be appropriate. Interestingly, some studies reported the clinical utility for all of the infants enrolled, including non-diagnosed patients, with some clinicians regarding WGS and WES to have a considerable negative predictive value, employing an informal Bayesian inferential reasoning, whereby negative genomic sequencing results revised the posterior probabilities of differential diagnoses. These studies suggest that, even after a non-diagnostic result, WGS and WES have some clinical utility, although changes in management were 10.1-fold more likely when results were positive (95% CI 4.7-22.4).(31, 35, 46–48, 50, 52, 57) Changes in management for non-diagnosed participants included cancellation of planned tissue biopsies, cessation of medications, subspecialist referrals, and screening recommendations, typically as a result of non-genetic diagnoses thought to be more likely.

If the overall diagnostic success of WGS and WES was 34% and 40%, respectively, and the overall clinical success of WGS and WES was the 74% and 72%, respectively, showing that WGS and WES were highly beneficial in the treatment, management, and therefore, survival of these children, then there is a strong case for standardising WGS/WES in newborns. Although it could be argued that WGS and WES should be used as the first-line genomic test for children with suspected genetic diseases, rather than for all children as part of the NBS programme, in order to fully utilise the clinical utility of WGS/WES, they should be used as part of the NBS procedure, before any symptoms manifest and the risk of morbidity and mortality increases. Testing approaches of parent-child trios, duos, and singletons varied between papers; although these sub-group approaches were not analysed in this review, the testing of parent-child trios is considered to be superior to singleton and duo testing. This is thought to be due to the ability of trio testing allowing for heritability to be determined, more specifically, whether the variants detected were inherited through the parents or de novo mutations. Of the papers that reported the heritability of variants, de novo variants accounted for 596/1381 (43%) detected by WGS and WES in total. This included P/LP variants that led to diagnoses, variants deemed to be an incidental finding, and VUS. De novo variants are of significant importance, in the context of WGS and WES for all newborns, as preconception genetic screening would not detect these variants.

There were several limitations to this meta-analysis. We were limited to analysing WGS and WES on cohorts of unwell children with suspected genetic diseases. This was not truly representative of the target population WGS and WES would be used for NBS. During initial searches, only one study was identified that researched the use of WGS within healthy and unwell cohorts.(38) This paper was included in this study; however, the healthy cohort was omitted from data extraction and analysis due to not meeting the patient selection criteria, presenting a risk of bias, and source of heterogeneity. The field would benefit from further studies on the diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS and WES on an unbiased healthy cohort, to statistically determine if WGS and WES are worthwhile and cost-effective approaches to NBS. The highest level of evidence for clinical interventions is meta-analyses of RCTs (Level 1).(65) Our literature search identified only five published RCTs, with two looking at different outcomes from the same trial, while another compared time to receipt of results rather than comparing sequencing methods. Each RCT compared different index tests and reference standards, two looking WES vs WGS, one examining WGS vs SGT, and the other looking et WES vs. SGT. We were, therefore, unable to produce a high-level evidence meta-analysis of WGS and WES compared to SGT. Our review consisted mainly of published studies comprising a Level 2 (non-randomised controlled studies or quasi-experimental studies) and Level 3 evidence (non-experimental descriptive studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies, and case-control studies). We examined the diagnostic and clinical utility of WGS and WES compared to SGT. However, severe heterogeneity was present across all between-group analyses. This could largely be due to differing rates of consanguinity within the cohort, as well as “cherry-picking” of participants with certain clinical presentations considered to have a high likelihood of a genetic origin. The year of publication could have also played a part; WGS and WES are relatively new techniques whose methodologies and interpretations are expanding with time and further knowledge. The rates of severe heterogeneity could be better explored through a meta-regression to determine the impacts of certain confounding factors on heterogeneity. The meta-analysis did not include the cost-effectiveness of WGS and WES compared to SGT, either in terms of the patient’s diagnostic odyssey or the overall impact on the healthcare system.

### 8.0 Conclusion

In meta-analyses of 43 studies of children with suspected genetic diseases, the diagnostic utility of WES (0.40, 95% CI 0.34-0.45, *I2*=90%), was qualitatively greater than WGS (0.34, 95% CI 0.29-0.39, *I2*=79%), and SGT (0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.25, *I2*=64%). For the rate of clinical utility, WGS (0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.89, *I2*=93%), was qualitatively greater than WES (0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.81, *I2*=86%), while both were qualitatively greater than SGT (0.69, 95% CI 0.38-0.94). Additional studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of WGS and WES in cohorts of healthy children, particularly RCTs examining the diagnostic and clinical utility, as well as the cost-effectiveness of using these sequencing techniques in this area, in order to truly determine if WGS and WES should become part of the NBS programme.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

## PRISMA 2020 Checklist

View this table:
[Table2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/T2)

From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

For more information, visit: [http://www.prisma-statement.org/](http://www.prisma-statement.org/)

View this table:
[Table3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/07/17/2023.07.17.23292722/T3)

**P:** seriously ill children, infants, newborns with suspected genetic disorders

**I:** whole exome sequencing, whole genome sequencing

**C:** single-gene testing/standard newborn screening

**O:** genetic/clinical diagnosis, time to diagnosis, change in treatment/management

**Concept 1:** children, infant, newborn 

*   MeSH terms: “Infant”[Mesh] OR “Infant, Newborn”[Mesh] OR “Child”[Mesh]

*   Key search terms: child*[tw] OR infant[tw] OR newborn[tw]

**Concept 2:** whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing 

*   MeSH terms: “Whole Genome Sequencing”[Mesh] OR “Whole Exome Sequencing”[Mesh] OR “Genetic Testing”[Mesh] OR “High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing”[Mesh]

*   Key search terms: WGS[tw] OR rWGS[tw] OR urWGS[tw] OR WES[tw] OR rWES[tw] OR “whole genome seqeunc*”[tw] OR “whole exome sequenc*”[tw]

**Concept 3:** critically ill, ICU, NICU, PICU 

*   MeSH terms: “Critical Illness”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care Units”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care, Neonatal”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care Units, Pediatric”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care Units, Neonatal”[Mesh] OR “Critical Care”[Mesh]

*   Key search terms: “critically ill”[tw] OR ICU[tw] OR NICU[tw] OR PICU[tw]

### PubMed Search

#1 “Infant”[Mesh] OR “Infant, Newborn”[Mesh] OR “Child”[Mesh] OR child*[tw] OR infant[tw] OR newborn[tw] OR baby[tw] OR neonate[tw]

#2 “Whole Genome Sequencing”[Mesh] OR “Whole Exome Sequencing”[Mesh] OR “Genetic Testing”[Mesh] OR “High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing”[Mesh] OR WGS[tw] OR rWGS[tw] OR urWGS[tw] OR WES[tw] OR rWES[tw] OR “whole genome seqeunc*”[tw] OR “whole exome sequenc*”[tw] OR “whole-genome sequenc*”[tw] OR “whole-exome sequenc*”[tw] OR “genomic sequenc*”[tw] OR “exome sequenc*”[tw] OR “genome sequenc*”[tw] OR TES[tw] OR TGS[tw] OR miseq[tw] OR hiseq[tw] OR “ion torrent”[tw] OR “clinical exome sequenc*”[tw] OR CES[tw]

#3 “Critical Illness”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care Units”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care, Neonatal”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care Units, Pediatric”[Mesh] OR “Intensive Care Units, Neonatal”[Mesh] OR “Critical Care”[Mesh] OR “critically ill”[tw] “critical illness”[tw] OR “gravely ill”[tw] OR “severely ill”[tw] OR ill[tw] OR unwell[tw] OR sick[tw] OR ICU[tw] OR NICU[tw] OR PICU[tw]

#4 #1 AND #2 AND #3

### Ovid MEDLINE® and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily 1946 to October Week 3 2021

**#1** exp whole genome sequencing/

**#2** exp whole exome sequencing/

**#3** “whole genome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#4** “whole-genome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#5** “whole exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#6** “whole-exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#7** “genomic sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#8** wgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#9** wes.ti,ab,mp.

**#10** rwgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#11** urwgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#12** rwes.ti,ab,mp.

**#13** “exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#14** “genome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#15** tes.ti,ab,mp.

**#16** tgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#17** miseq.ti,ab,mp.

**#18** hiseq.ti,ab,mp.

**#19** “ion torrent”.ti,ab,mp.

**#20** “clinical exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#21** ces.ti,ab,mp.

**#22** 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21

**#23** exp child/

**#24** exp infant/

**#25** exp newborn/

**#26** child*.ti,ab,mp.

**#27** infant.ti,ab,mp.

**#28** newborn.ti,ab,mp.

**#29** baby.ti,ab,mp.

**#30** neonate.ti,ab,mp.

**#31** 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30

**#32** exp Critical Illness/

**#33** exp intensive care unit/

**#34** exp intensive care units, neonatal/

**#35** exp pediatric intensive care unit/

**#36** exp intensive care/

**#37** “critical illness”.ti,ab,mp.

**#38** “critically ill”.ti,ab,mp.

**#39** “gravely ill”.ti,ab,mp.

**#40** “severely ill”.ti,ab,mp.

**#41** ill.ti,ab,mp.

**#42** unwell.ti,ab,mp.

**#43** sick.ti,ab,mp. #44 exp critical care/

**#45** icu.ti,ab,mp.

**#46** nicu.ti,ab,mp.

**#47** picu.ti,ab,mp.

**#48** 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 or 43 or 44 or 45 or 46 or 47

**#49** 22 and 31 and 48

### Scopus Search

**#1** TITLE-ABS-KEY(child* OR infant OR newborn OR baby OR neonate)

**#2** TITLE-ABS-KEY(“whole genome sequenc*” OR “whole-genome sequenc*” OR “whole exome sequenc*” OR “whole-exome sequenc*” OR “genomic sequenc*” OR {WGS} OR {rWGS} OR {urWGS} OR {WES} OR {rWES} OR “exome sequenc*” OR “genome sequenc*” OR {TES} OR {TGS} OR {miseq} OR {hiseq} OR “ion torrent” OR “clinical exome sequenc*” OR {CES})

**#3** TITLE-ABS-KEY(“critically ill” OR “critical illness” OR “gravely ill” OR “severely ill” OR ill OR unwell OR sick OR ICU OR NICU OR PICU)

**#4** #1 AND #2 AND #3

### Web of Science Search

**#1** ts=child*

**#2** ts=infant

**#3** ts=newborn

**#4** ts=baby

**#5** ts=neonate

**#6** #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5

**#7** ts=“whole genome sequenc*”

**#8** ts=“whole-genome sequenc*”

**#9** ts=“whole exome sequenc*”

**#10** ts=“whole-exome sequenc*”

**#11** ts=“genomic sequenc*”

**#12** ts=WGS

**#13** ts=rWGS

**#14** ts=urWGS

**#15** ts=WES

**#16** ts=rWES

**#17** ts=“exome sequenc*”

**#18** ts=“genome sequenc*”

**#19** ts=TES

**#20** ts=TGS

**#21** ts=miseq

**#22** ts=hiseq

**#23** ts=“ion torrent”

**#24** ts=“clinical exome sequenc*”

**#25** ts=CES

**#26** #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25

**#27** ts=“critically ill”

**#28** ts=“critical illness”

**#29** ts=“gravely ill”

**#30** ts=“severely ill”

**#31** ts=ill

**#32** ts=unwell

**#33** ts=sick

**#34** ts=ICU

**#35** ts=NICU

**#36** ts=PICU

**#37** #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30 OR #31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35 OR #36

**#38** #6 AND #26 AND #37

### EMBASE search 1980 to 2021 Week 41

**#1** exp whole genome sequencing/

**#2** exp whole exome sequencing/

**#3** “whole genome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#4** “whole-genome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#5** “whole exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#6** “whole-exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#7** “genomic sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#8** wgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#9** wes.ti,ab,mp.

**#10** rwgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#11** urwgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#12** rwes.ti,ab,mp.

**#13** “exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#14** “genome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#15** tes.ti,ab,mp.

**#16** tgs.ti,ab,mp.

**#17** miseq.ti,ab,mp.

**#18** hiseq.ti,ab,mp.

**#19** “ion torrent”.ti,ab,mp.

**#20** “clinical exome sequenc*”.ti,ab,mp.

**#21** ces.ti,ab,mp.

**#22** 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21

**#23** exp child/

**#24** exp infant/

**#25** exp newborn/

**#26** child*.ti,ab,mp.

**#27** infant.ti,ab,mp.

**#28** newborn.ti,ab,mp.

**#29** baby.ti,ab,mp.

**#30** neonate.ti,ab,mp.

**#31** 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30

**#32** exp Critical Illness/

**#33** exp intensive care unit/

**#34** exp newborn intensive care/

**#35** exp pediatric intensive care unit/

**#36** exp intensive care/

**#37** “critical illness”.ti,ab,mp.

**#38** “critically ill”.ti,ab,mp.

**#39** “gravely ill”.ti,ab,mp.

**#40** “severely ill”.ti,ab,mp.

**#41** exp critically ill patient/

**#42** ill.ti,ab,mp.

**#43** unwell.ti,ab,mp.

**#44** sick.ti,ab,mp.

**#45** icu.ti,ab,mp.

**#46** nicu.ti,ab,mp.

**#47** picu.ti,ab,mp.

**#48** 32 or 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41 or 42 or 43 or 44 or 45 or 46 or 47

**#49** 22 and 31 and 48

### Cochrane library – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 10 of 12, October 2021)

**#1** MeSH descriptor: [Infant] explode all trees

**#2** MeSH descriptor: [Infant, Newborn] explode all trees

**#3** MeSH descriptor: [Child] explode all trees

**#4** child*

**#5** infant

**#6** newborn

**#7** baby

**#8** neonate

**#9** #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8

**#10** MeSH descriptor: [Whole Genome Sequencing] explode all trees

**#11** MeSH descriptor: [Whole Exome Sequencing] explode all trees

**#12** MeSH descriptor: [Genetic Testing] explode all trees

**#13** MeSH descriptor: [High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing] explode all trees

**#14** WGS

**#15** rWGS

**#16** urWGS

**#17** WES

**#18** rWES

**#19** “whole genome sequenc*”

**#20** “whole-genome sequenc*”

**#21** “whole exome sequenc*”

**#22** “whole-exome sequenc*”

**#23** “genomic sequenc*”

**#24** “exome sequenc*”

**#25** “genome sequenc*”

**#26** TES

**#27** TGS

**#28** miseq

**#29** hiseq

**#30** “ion torrent”

**#31** “clinical exome sequenc*”

**#32** CES

**#33** #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30 OR #31 OR #32

**#34** MeSH descriptor: [Critical Illness] explode all trees

**#35** MeSH descriptor: [Intensive Care Units] explode all trees

**#36** MeSH descriptor: [Intensive Care Units, Neonatal] explode all trees

**#37** MeSH descriptor: [Intensive Care Units, Pediatric] explode all trees

**#38** MeSH descriptor: [Critical Care] explode all trees

**#39** “critically ill”

**#40** “critical illness”

**#41** “gravely ill”

**#42** “severely ill”

**#43** ill

**#44** unwell

**#45** sick

**#46** ICU

**#47** NICU

**#48** PICU

**#49** #34 OR #35 OR #36 OR #37 OR #38 OR #39 OR #40 OR #41 OR #42 OR #43 OR #44 OR #45 OR #46 OR #47 OR #48

**#50** #9 AND #33 AND #49

## Abbreviations

ACMG
:   American College of Medical Genetics
CMA
:   Chromosomal microarray
EHR
:   Electronic Health Record
NBS
:   Newborn screening
NGS
:   Next-generation sequencing
P/LP
:   Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic
SGT
:   Standard genetic testing
VUS
:   Variants of unknown significance
WGS
:   Whole-genome sequencing
WES
:   Whole-exome sequencing

*   Received July 17, 2023.
*   Revision received July 17, 2023.
*   Accepted July 17, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## 9.0 References

1.  1.Kingsmore SF, Henderson A, Owen MJ, Clark MM, Hansen C, Dimmock D, et al. Measurement of genetic diseases as a cause of mortality in infants receiving whole genome sequencing. npj Genomic Medicine. 2020;5(1):49.
    
    

2.  2.Stevenson DA, Carey JC. Contribution of malformations and genetic disorders to mortality in a children’s hospital. Am J Med Genet A. 2004;126a(4):393–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15098237&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

3.  3.EURORDIS Rare Diseases Europe. Genetic testing and newborn screening [Available from: [https://www.eurordis.org/content/genetic-testing-and-newborn-screening](https://www.eurordis.org/content/genetic-testing-and-newborn-screening). Accessed: 29th March 2021
    
    

4.  4.GlobalGenesProject. Rare diseases: facts and statistics. 2017 [Available from: [https://globalgenesorg/rare-diseases-facts-statistics/](https://globalgenesorg/rare-diseases-facts-statistics/). Accessed: 29th March 2021
    
    

5.  5.Shashi V, McConkie-Rosell A, Rosell B, Schoch K, Vellore K, McDonald M, et al. The utility of the traditional medical genetics diagnostic evaluation in the context of next-generation sequencing for undiagnosed genetic disorders. Genetics in Medicine. 2014;16(2):176–82.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2013.99&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23928913&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

6.  6.McKusick VA. Mendelian Inheritance in Man and its online version, OMIM. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;80(4):588–604.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/514346&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17357067&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000245465200002&link_type=ISI) 

7.  7.OMIM – Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man. An Online Catalog of Human Genes and Genetic Disorders 2021 [Available from: [https://omim.org/](https://omim.org/). Accessed: 29th March 2021
    
    

8.  8.EURORDIS Rare Diseases Europe. Survey of the delay in diagnosis for 8 rare diseases in Europe (‘EURORDISCARE 2’) 2006 [Available from: [https://www.eurordis.org/publication/survey-delay-diagnosis-8-rare-diseases-europe-‘eurordiscare2’](https://www.eurordis.org/publication/survey-delay-diagnosis-8-rare-diseases-europe-%E2%80%98eurordiscare2%E2%80%99). Accessed: 29th March 2021
    
    

9.  9.Sawyer SL, Hartley T, Dyment DA, Beaulieu CL, Schwartzentruber J, Smith A, et al. Utility of whole-exome sequencing for those near the end of the diagnostic odyssey: time to address gaps in care. Clin Genet. 2016;89(3):275–84.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/cge.12654&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26283276&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

10. 10.Willig LK, Petrikin JE, Smith LD, Saunders CJ, Thiffault I, Miller NA, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for identification of Mendelian disorders in critically ill infants: a retrospective analysis of diagnostic and clinical findings. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(5):377–87.
    
    

11. 11.Wilson JMG, Jungner G, Organization WH. Principles and practice of screening for disease. 1968.
    
    

12. 12.Loeber JG, Burgard P, Cornel MC, Rigter T, Weinreich SS, Rupp K, et al. Newborn screening programmes in Europe; arguments and efforts regarding harmonization. Part 1 – From blood spot to screening result. Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease. 2012;35(4):603–11.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10545-012-9483-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22552820&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

13. 13.GOV.UK. Newborn blood spot screening: programme overview 2018 [Available from: [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/newborn-blood-spot-screening-programme-overview-conditions-screened-for](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/newborn-blood-spot-screening-programme-overview-conditions-screened-for). Accessed: 29th March 2021
    
    

14. 14.American College of Medical Genetics Newborn Screening Expert Group. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system--executive summary. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5 Pt 2):S296–307.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1542/peds.2005-2633I&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16735256&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237207600009&link_type=ISI) 

15. 15.Trier C, Fournous G, Strand JM, Stray-Pedersen A, Pettersen RD, Rowe AD. Next-generation sequencing of newborn screening genes: the accuracy of short-read mapping. npj Genomic Medicine. 2020;5(1):36.
    
    

16. 16.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
    
    

17. 17.Strande NT, Riggs ER, Buchanan AH, Ceyhan-Birsoy O, DiStefano M, Dwight SS, et al. Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;100(6):895–906.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=S0002-9297(17)30160-X [pii] 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.04.015&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28552198&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

18. 18.Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, Chung WK, Eng C, Evans JP, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2017;19(2):249–55.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2016.190&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27854360&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

19. 19.Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1059/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22007046&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000296066300018&link_type=ISI) 

20. 20.Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Archives of Public Health. 2014;72(1):39.
    
    

21. 21.Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R. How does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 2010;140(4):961–70.
    
    

22. 22.Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.1186&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12111919&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000176016900005&link_type=ISI) 

23. 23.Need AC, Shashi V, Hitomi Y, Schoch K, Shianna KV, McDonald MT, et al. Clinical application of exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic conditions. J Med Genet. 2012;49(6):353–61.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiam1lZGdlbmV0IjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjQ5LzYvMzUzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDcvMTcvMjAyMy4wNy4xNy4yMzI5MjcyMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

24. 24.Taylor JC, Martin HC, Lise S, Broxholme J, Cazier JB, Rimmer A, et al. Factors influencing success of clinical genome sequencing across a broad spectrum of disorders. Nat Genet. 2015;47(7):717–26.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/ng.3304&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25985138&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

25. 25.Stark Z, Tan TY, Chong B, Brett GR, Yap P, Walsh M, et al. A prospective evaluation of whole-exome sequencing as a first-tier molecular test in infants with suspected monogenic disorders. Genetics in Medicine. 2016;18(11):1090–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2016.1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26938784&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

26. 26.Stavropoulos DJ, Merico D, Jobling R, Bowdin S, Monfared N, Thiruvahindrapuram B, et al. Whole-genome sequencing expands diagnostic utility and improves clinical management in paediatric medicine. npj Genomic Medicine. 2016;1(1):15012.
    
    

27. 27.Meng LY, Pammi M, Saronwala A, Magoulas P, Ghazi AR, Vetrini F, et al. Use of Exome Sequencing for Infants in Intensive Care Units Ascertainment of Severe Single-Gene Disorders and Effect on Medical Management. Jama Pediatrics. 2017;171(12):10.
    
    

28. 28.Tan TY, Dillon OJ, Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K, Shrestha R, et al. Diagnostic Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Whole-Exome Sequencing for Ambulant Children With Suspected Monogenic Conditions. JAMA Pediatrics. 2017;171(9):855–62.
    
    

29. 29.Van Diemen CC, Kerstjens-Frederikse WS, Bergman KA, De Koning TJ, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Van Der Velde JK, et al. Rapid targeted genomics in critically ill newborns. Pediatrics. 2017;140(4):e20172854.
    
    

30. 30.Lionel AC, Costain G, Monfared N, Walker S, Reuter MS, Hosseini SM, et al. Improved diagnostic yield compared with targeted gene sequencing panels suggests a role for whole-genome sequencing as a first-tier genetic test. Genet Med. 2018;20(4):435–43.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/GIM.2017.119&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

31. 31.Farnaes L, Hildreth A, Sweeney NM, Clark MM, Chowdhury S, Nahas S, et al. Rapid whole-genome sequencing decreases infant morbidity and cost of hospitalization. npj Genomic Medicine. 2018;3(1):49.
    
    

32. 32.Li N, Xu Y, Li G, Yu T, Yao R-e, Wang J, et al. Proband-only medical exome sequencing as a cost-effective first-tier genetic diagnostic test for patients without prior molecular tests and clinical diagnosis in a developing country: the China experience. Genetics in Medicine. 2018;20(9):1045–53.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2017.195&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

33. 33.Kernohan KD, Hartley T, Naumenko S, Armour CM, Graham GE, Nikkel SM, et al. Diagnostic clarity of exome sequencing following negative comprehensive panel testing in the neonatal intensive care unit. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A. 2018;176(7):1688–91.
    
    

34. 34.Mestek-Boukhibar L, Clement E, Jones WD, Drury S, Ocaka L, Gagunashvili A, et al. Rapid Paediatric Sequencing (RaPS): comprehensive real-life workflow for rapid diagnosis of critically ill children. J Med Genet. 2018;55(11):721–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToiam1lZGdlbmV0IjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjU1LzExLzcyMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA3LzE3LzIwMjMuMDcuMTcuMjMyOTI3MjIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

35. 35.Petrikin JE, Cakici JA, Clark MM, Willig LK, Sweeney NM, Farrow EG, et al. The NSIGHT1-randomized controlled trial: Rapid whole-genome sequencing for accelerated etiologic diagnosis in critically ill infants. npj Genomic Medicine. 2018;3(1):45.
    
    

36. 36.Powis Z, Hagman KDF, Speare V, Cain T, Blanco K, Mowlavi LS, et al. Exome sequencing in neonates: diagnostic rates, characteristics, and time to diagnosis. Genetics in Medicine. 2018;20(11):1468–71.
    
    

37. 37.Stark Z, Lunke S, Brett GR, Tan NB, Stapleton R, Kumble S, et al. Meeting the challenges of implementing rapid genomic testing in acute pediatric care. Genetics in Medicine. 2018;20(12):1554–63.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

38. 38.Ceyhan-Birsoy O, Murry JB, Machini K, Lebo MS, Yu TW, Fayer S, et al. Interpretation of Genomic Sequencing Results in Healthy and Ill Newborns: Results from the BabySeq Project. American journal of human genetics. 2019;104(1):76–93.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.016&link_type=DOI) 

39. 39.Elliott AM, du Souich C, Lehman A, Guella I, Evans DM, Candido T, et al. RAPIDOMICS: rapid genome-wide sequencing in a neonatal intensive care unit-successes and challenges. European Journal of Pediatrics. 2019;178(8):1207–18.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00431-019-03399-4&link_type=DOI) 

40. 40.French CE, Delon I, Dolling H, Sanchis-Juan A, Shamardina O, Megy K, et al. Whole genome sequencing reveals that genetic conditions are frequent in intensively ill children. Intensive care medicine. 2019;45(5):627–36.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-019-05552-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

41. 41.Kingsmore SF, Cakici JA, Clark MM, Gaughran M, Feddock M, Batalov S, et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Analytic and Diagnostic Performance of Singleton and Trio, Rapid Genome and Exome Sequencing in Ill Infants. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2019;105(4):719–33.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.e08.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31564432&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

42. 42.Sanford EF, Clark MM, Farnaes L, Williams MR, Perry JC, Ingulli EG, et al. Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing Has Clinical Utility in Children in the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019;20(11):1007–20.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/PCC.0000000000002056&link_type=DOI) 

43. 43.Thiffault I, Farrow E, Zellmer L, Berrios C, Miller N, Gibson M, et al. Clinical genome sequencing in an unbiased pediatric cohort. Genetics in Medicine. 2019;21(2):303–10.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41436-018-0075-8&link_type=DOI) 

44. 44.van der Sluijs PJ, Aten E, Barge-Schaapveld DQCM, Bijlsma EK, Bokenkamp-Gramann R, Donker Kaat L, et al. Putting genome-wide sequencing in neonates into perspective. Genetics in Medicine. 2019;21(5):1074–82.
    
    

45. 45.Wu E-T, Hwu W-L, Chien Y-H, Hsu C, Chen T-F, Chen N-Q, et al. Critical Trio Exome Benefits In-Time Decision-Making for Pediatric Patients With Severe Illnesses. Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. 2019;20(11):1021–6.
    
    

46. 46.Carey AS, Schacht JP, Umandap C, Fasel D, Weng C, Cappell J, et al. Rapid exome sequencing in PICU patients with new-onset metabolic or neurological disorders. Pediatric Research. 2020;88(5):761–8.
    
    

47. 47.Dimmock DP, Clark MM, Gaughran M, Cakici JA, Caylor SA, Clarke C, et al. An RCT of Rapid Genomic Sequencing among Seriously Ill Infants Results in High Clinical Utility, Changes in Management, and Low Perceived Harm. American journal of human genetics. 2020;107(5):942–52.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.10.003&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33157007&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

48. 48.Freed AS, Clowes Candadai SV, Sikes MC, Thies J, Byers HM, Dines JN, et al. The Impact of Rapid Exome Sequencing on Medical Management of Critically Ill Children. Journal of Pediatrics. 2020;226:202.
    
    

49. 49.Gubbels CS, VanNoy GE, Madden JA, Copenheaver D, Yang SR, Wojcik MH, et al. Prospective, phenotype-driven selection of critically ill neonates for rapid exome sequencing is associated with high diagnostic yield. Genetics in Medicine. 2020;22(4):736–44.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41436-019-0708-6&link_type=DOI) 

50. 50.Lunke S, Eggers S, Wilson M, Patel C, Barnett CP, Pinner J, et al. Feasibility of ultra-rapid exome sequencing in critically ill infants and children with suspected monogenic conditions in the australian public health care system. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey. 2020;75(11):662–4.
    
    

51. 51.Smigiel R, Biela M, Szmyd K, Bloch M, Szmida E, Skiba P, et al. Rapid whole-exome sequencing as a diagnostic tool in a neonatal/pediatric intensive care unit. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020;9(7):1–15.
    
    

52. 52.Smith HS, Swint JM, Lalani SR, de Oliveira Otto MC, Yamal J-M, Russell HV, et al. Exome sequencing compared with standard genetic tests for critically ill infants with suspected genetic conditions. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2020;22(8):1303–10.
    
    

53. 53.Wang HJ, Lu YL, Dong XR, Lu GP, Cheng GQ, Qian YY, et al. Optimized trio genome sequencing (OTGS) as a first-tier genetic test in critically ill infants: practice in China. Hum Genet. 2020;139(4):473–82.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00439-019-02103-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

54. 54.Wang HJ, Qian YY, Lu YL, Qin Q, Lu GP, Cheng GQ, et al. Clinical utility of 24-h rapid trio-exome sequencing for critically ill infants. Npj Genomic Medicine. 2020;5(1):6.
    
    

55. 55.Zhu TW, Gong XH, Bei F, Ma L, Chen Y, Zhang YH, et al. Application of Next-Generation Sequencing for Genetic Diagnosis in Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Results of a Multicenter Study in China. Front Genet. 2020;11:11.
    
    

56. 56.Ziats MN, Ahmad A, Bernat JA, Fisher R, Glassford M, Hannibal MC, et al. Genotype-phenotype analysis of 523 patients by genetics evaluation and clinical exome sequencing. Pediatric Research. 2020;87(4):735–9.
    
    

57. 57.Maron JL, Kingsmore SF, Wigby K, Chowdhury S, Dimmock D, Poindexter B, et al. Novel Variant Findings and Challenges Associated with the Clinical Integration of Genomic Testing: An Interim Report of the Genomic Medicine for Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) Study. JAMA Pediatrics. 2021:E205906.
    
    

58. 58.Chung CCY, Leung GKC, Mak CCY, Fung JLF, Lee M, Pei SLC, et al. Rapid whole-exome sequencing facilitates precision medicine in paediatric rare disease patients and reduces healthcare costs. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2020;1.
    
    

59. 59.Dimmock D, Caylor S, Waldman B, Benson W, Chowdhury S, Ellsworth K, et al. Project Baby Bear: Rapid precision care incorporating rWGS in 5 California children’s hospitals demonstrates improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2021;108(7):1231–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.05.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34089648&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 

60. 60.Krantz ID, Medne L, Weatherly JM, Wild KT, Devkota B, Hartman T, et al. Effect of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Clinical Management of Acutely Ill Infants with Suspected Genetic Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatrics. 2021.
    
    

61. 61.Liu Y, Li K, Gao H, Zeng J, Liu J, Li Z, et al. Clinical Application of Whole Exome Sequencing for Monogenic Disorders in PICU of China. Front Genet. 2021;12:677699.
    
    

62. 62.Scholz T, Blohm ME, Kortum F, Bierhals T, Lessel D, van der Ven AT, et al. Whole-Exome Sequencing in Critically Ill Neonates and Infants: Diagnostic Yield and Predictability of Monogenic Diagnosis. Neonatology. 2021;118(4):454–61.
    
    

63. 63. Usha Devi R,  Thinesh Kumar J, Jan SMS, Chandrasekaran A, Amboiram P, Balakrishnan U, et al. Utility of clinical exome sequencing in the evaluation of neonates with suspected genetic condition – An observational study from tertiary neonatal care unit in South India. European Journal of Medical Genetics. 2021;64(7):104247.
    
    

64. 64.Yang L, Zhang P, Zhao X, Wang Y, Gan M, Li G, et al. Application of Full-Spectrum Rapid Clinical Genome Sequencing Improves Diagnostic Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Infants in the China Neonatal Genomes Project. Critical Care Medicine. 2021:1674–83.
    
    

65. 65.Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Developing clinical guidelines. West J Med. 1999;170(6):348–51.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18751155&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F07%2F17%2F2023.07.17.23292722.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000081692500014&link_type=ISI)