ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2005
How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Value Assessment Frameworks Used within Health Technology Assessment of Omics Technologies and Their Actual Adoption from HTA Agencies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Parental experience of whole genome sequencing for children with sensorineural hearing loss.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Development and validation of risk stratification models for hepatocellular cancer: A framework from the translational liver cancer consortium.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2026Review
- Genome Sequencing Enhances Precision and Clinical Utility of Pharmacogenetic Data Compared to Arrays.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Translational human gut microbiome research: What are the missing pieces of the puzzle?Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical translation of polygenic scores for prostate cancer screening.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Proposed framework for triage of putative germline variants detected via tumour genomic testing in UK oncology practice.Journal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- Understanding Genetic Screening: Harnessing Health Information to Prevent Disease Risks.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Precision Medicine-Are We There Yet? A Narrative Review of Precision Medicine's Applicability in Primary Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- The Parent PrU: A measure to assess personal utility of pediatric genomic results.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Implementing Reporting Standards for Polygenic Risk Scores for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2023Review
- From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Development and Analytical Validation of a 29 Gene Clinical Pharmacogenetic Genotyping Panel: Multi-Ethnic Allele and Copy Number Variant Detection.Clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020Review
- First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Review
- The Role of Next-Generation Sequencing in Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2019Review
- Healthcare System Priorities for Successful Integration of Genomics: An Australian Focus.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- Current landscape of personalized medicine adoption and implementation in Southeast Asia.BMC medical genomics · 2018Article
- Direct to consumer genetic testing-law and policy concerns in Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
- What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in genetic technology are increasing the availability of genetic tests, not only for rare single gene disorders, but also for common diseases such as breast and colo-rectal cancer. Before there can be widespread uptake of these tests, they must be evaluated to confirm the benefits of their use. But how should genetic tests be evaluated, given the speed at which new tests are emerging? One highly influential approach is the analytic validity, clinical validity, clinical utility and ethical, legal and social issues (ACCE) framework, which has provided a benchmark for the evaluation of genetic tests. The approach has been adopted and adapted by the United Kingdom Genetic Testing Network, with the help of the Public Health Genetics Unit in Cambridge, to evaluate new genetic tests for use in the National Health Service. We discuss a number of conceptual, methodological, and practical issues concerning the evaluation of genetic tests, based on lessons learned from applying the ACCE framework and from the UK experience, and make a number of recommendations to further strengthen the evaluation of genetic tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16170241What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.