Kimberly Splinter
Harvard University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Kimberly Splinter.
Journal of Genetic Counseling | 2016
Kimberly Splinter; Anna-Kaisa Niemi; Rachel Cox; Julia Platt; Monisha K. Shah; Gregory M. Enns; Mureo Kasahara; Jonathan A. Bernstein
An understanding of health related quality of life (HRQoL) in children and families affected by methylmalonic acidemia (MMA) is important in planning counseling and therapeutic intervention. Liver transplantation (LT) is used as a treatment for MMA; however, its risks and benefits continue to be investigated. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to measure HRQoL in children and families affected by MMA using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) parent version, and (2) to assess the impact of LT on HRQoL by comparing LT and non-LT patient scores and free responses. Parents/caregivers reported lower scores on the majority of the PedsQL™ scales as compared to samples of healthy children, children with solid organ transplants for indications other than MMA, and families affected by chronic conditions. Scores for children with MMA were lowest in school and social functioning and scores for families were lowest in worry and activity impairment. There were no significant differences in LT and non-LT patient scores on the PedsQL™ scales. Our results document the negative impact of MMA on HRQoL.
The New England Journal of Medicine | 2018
Kimberly Splinter; David Adams; Carlos A. Bacino; Hugo J. Bellen; Jonathan A. Bernstein; Alys M. Cheatle-Jarvela; Christine M. Eng; Cecilia Esteves; William A. Gahl; Rizwan Hamid; Howard J. Jacob; Bijal Kikani; David M. Koeller; Isaac S. Kohane; Brendan Lee; Joseph Loscalzo; Xi Luo; Alexa T. McCray; Thomas O. Metz; John J. Mulvihill; Stanley F. Nelson; Christina G.S. Palmer; John A. Phillips; Leslie Pick; John H. Postlethwait; Chloe M. Reuter; Vandana Shashi; David A. Sweetser; Cynthia J. Tifft; Nicole M. Walley
Background Many patients remain without a diagnosis despite extensive medical evaluation. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) was established to apply a multidisciplinary model in the evaluation of the most challenging cases and to identify the biologic characteristics of newly discovered diseases. The UDN, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health, was formed in 2014 as a network of seven clinical sites, two sequencing cores, and a coordinating center. Later, a central biorepository, a metabolomics core, and a model organisms screening center were added. Methods We evaluated patients who were referred to the UDN over a period of 20 months. The patients were required to have an undiagnosed condition despite thorough evaluation by a health care provider. We determined the rate of diagnosis among patients who subsequently had a complete evaluation, and we observed the effect of diagnosis on medical care. Results A total of 1519 patients (53% female) were referred to the UDN, of whom 601 (40%) were accepted for evaluation. Of the accepted patients, 192 (32%) had previously undergone exome sequencing. Symptoms were neurologic in 40% of the applicants, musculoskeletal in 10%, immunologic in 7%, gastrointestinal in 7%, and rheumatologic in 6%. Of the 382 patients who had a complete evaluation, 132 received a diagnosis, yielding a rate of diagnosis of 35%. A total of 15 diagnoses (11%) were made by clinical review alone, and 98 (74%) were made by exome or genome sequencing. Of the diagnoses, 21% led to recommendations regarding changes in therapy, 37% led to changes in diagnostic testing, and 36% led to variant‐specific genetic counseling. We defined 31 new syndromes. Conclusions The UDN established a diagnosis in 132 of the 382 patients who had a complete evaluation, yielding a rate of diagnosis of 35%. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health Common Fund.)
Clinical and Translational Science | 2018
Kimberly Splinter; Sara Chandros Hull; Ingrid A. Holm; Tara L. McDonough; Anastasia L. Wise; Rachel B. Ramoni
In 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Undiagnosed Diseases Program (UDP)1,2 was established to provide answers for patients with conditions that had long eluded diagnosis. Based on the success of the UDP, the NIH elected to support the program’s expansion into a network of medical research centers in 2013, the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN). Here we outline the steps required for implementing a single Institutional ReviewBoard (IRB), highlighting our experience in the UDN.
Clinical and Translational Science | 2017
Kimberly Splinter; Sara Chandros Hull; Ingrid A. Holm; Tara L. McDonough; Anastasia L. Wise; Rachel B. Ramoni
In 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Undiagnosed Diseases Program (UDP)1,2 was established to provide answers for patients with conditions that had long eluded diagnosis. Based on the success of the UDP, the NIH elected to support the program’s expansion into a network of medical research centers in 2013, the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN). Here we outline the steps required for implementing a single Institutional ReviewBoard (IRB), highlighting our experience in the UDN.