Abstract
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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
