PubMed · 2038773
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K E Tvedt. Analytical electron microscopy--a diagnostic tool?. https://doi.org/10.3109/01913129109016229
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: The Rare Disease Diagnostic Support Program in the Republic of Korea aims to improve early diagnosis and diagnostic yield for patients with rare diseases, particularly for those residing in non-metropolitan areas, by providing whole genome sequencing (WGS) services through regional medical institutions. This study evaluated the performance of the program, focusing on its clinical utility, including early diagnosis and treatment linkage, and its policy impact related to patient benefits. METHODS: From August 2024, WGS was performed on 410 patients with suspected rare diseases at 23 institutions outside the metropolitan area. A one-stop diagnostic pathway was established to perform sample collection, test referral, report delivery, and genetic counseling within a single clinical flow based on the patient’s location of residence. Sequencing was performed by external laboratories. RESULTS: Among the 410 patients, pathogenic variants were identified in 129 (31.5%), with a turnaround time of 28 days. Of those diagnosed, 78.2% received treatment benefits via national programs such as co-payment exemption and medical expense support programs. Approximately 30% of the patients were eligible for therapeutic intervention, particularly medication or dietary therapy. Family genetic testing of three members identified potential carriers or high-risk groups in 28 households (65.1%). Consent for secondary findings was 99.0%, with clinically significant variants found in 3.9% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The program demonstrated clinical value by improving diagnostic accessibility, reducing regional disparities, facilitating timely treatment, and supporting preventive care through family risk identification. These findings support the need for sustainable expansion of genome-based diagnostic services in the national health policy.
Publications on the frequency of defined symptoms in the practice setting, underlying conditions and prognosis have been rare in the past. Also, studies addressing these questions have suffered from several methodological problems. We therefore developed criteria to help investigators improve the quality of study design, implementation and publication. Studies evaluating symptoms in practice can make an important contribution to a more rational approach to diagnostic decision making especially in primary care.
Clinicians rely on knowledge about the clinical manifestations of disease to make clinical diagnoses. Before using research on the frequency of clinical features found in patients with a disease, clinicians should appraise the evidence for its validity, results, and applicability. For validity, 4 issues are important-how the diagnoses were verified, how the study sample relates to all patients with the disease, how the clinical findings were sought, and how the clinical findings were characterized. Ideally, investigators will verify the presence of disease in study patients using credible criteria that are independent of the clinical manifestations under study. Also, ideally the study patients will represent the full spectrum of the disease, undergo a thorough and consistent search for clinical findings, and these findings will be well characterized in nature and timing. The main results of these studies are expressed as the number and percentages of patients with each manifestation. Confidence intervals can describe the precision of these frequencies. Most clinical findings occur with only intermediate frequency, and since these frequencies are equivalent to diagnostic sensitivities, this means that the absence of a single finding is rarely powerful enough to exclude the disease. Before acting on the evidence, clinicians should consider whether it applies to their own patients and whether it has been superseded by new developments. Detailed knowledge of the clinical manifestations of disease should increase clinicians' ability to raise diagnostic hypotheses, select differential diagnoses, and verify final diagnoses. JAMA. 2000;284:869-875