Table 1.

Univariate Analysis of Clinician Perception of Clinical Utility of rWGS, rWES, and urWGS in NICU, PICU, and CVICU Infants

	rWES	rWGS	rWES versus rWGS p Value	urWGS	urWGS versus rWES+ rWGS P value	Positive Tests	Negative Tests	Pos versus Neg Tests p Value
Infants enrolleda	95	94	N/A	24	N/A	51	162	N/A
Test identified molecular diagnosis or incidental finding, n (%)a	20 (21%)	20 (21%)	1	11 (46%)	0.01	N/A	N/A	N/A
Time to first positive or negative report (days), median (range)a	11.2 (4−39)	11.0 (3−49)	0.65	4.6 (1–4)	<0.0001	N/A	N/A	N/A
Time to first positive report (days), median (range)a	11.4 (8−39)	11.8 (3−25)	0.69	2.3 (1–14)	0.0002	N/A	N/A	N/A
Clinician Perception
Surveys completed, n (%)	90 (95%)	93 (99%)	N/D	24 (100%)	N/D	49 (96%)	158 (98%)	N/D
Test was useful or very useful, n (%)	66 (76%)	66 (73%)	0.73	22 (92%)	0.07	42 (93%)	112 (72%)	0.002
Test changed management, n (%)	19 (21%)	23 (25%)	0.6	15 (63%)	0.0001	31 (63%)	26 (16%)	<0.00001
Test changed an outcome, n (%)	17 (19%)	9 (10%)	0.09	6 (25%)	0.22	19 (39%)	13 (8%)	<0.00001
Test improved communication, n (%)	34 (38%)	34 (37%)	0.88	16 (67%)	0.008	34 (69%)	50 (32%)	<0.00001
Test increased stress or confusion, n (%)	3 (35)	1 (1%)	0.36	2 (8%)	0.14	4 (8%)	2 (1%)	0.14
Test let to other changes in management, n (%)	20 (22%)	21 (23%)	1	10 (42%)	0.047	40 (82%)	11 (7%)	<0.00001
Test led to another test being cancelled, n (%)	16 (19%)	20 (22%)	1	8 (32%)	0.18	13 (27%)	31 (20%)	0.32
Test led to another test being ordered, n (%)	11 (12%)	15 (16%)	0.53	5 (21%)	0.37	19 (39%)	9 (6%)	<0.00001

N/A, not applicable; N/D, not done. Rates of occurrence were compared between groups with Fisher’s exact test. A significance cutoff of α = 0.05 was used for all analyses. All analyses were conducted in R v.3.3.3.

^aResults were previously published.⁶