Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22147957›Full record

ArticleThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2011

Next-generation sequencing for cancer diagnostics: a practical perspective.

Cliff Meldrum, Maria A Doyle, Richard W Tothill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 163 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Wearable bioelectronics for cancer theranostics.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Current Status of Next-Generation Sequencing in Bone Genetic Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cliff MeldrumMolecular Pathology, Hunter Area Pathology Service, Newcastle, NSW 2310;
Maria A Doyle
Richard W Tothill

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is arguably one of the most significant technological advances in the biological sciences of the last 30 years. The second generation sequencing platforms have advanced rapidly to the point that several genomes can now be sequenced simultaneously in a single instrument run in under two weeks. Targeted DNA enrichment methods allow even higher genome throughput at a reduced cost per sample. Medical research has embraced the technology and the cancer field is at the forefront of these efforts given the genetic aspects of the disease. World-wide efforts to catalogue mutations in multiple cancer types are underway and this is likely to lead to new discoveries that will be translated to new diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic targets. NGS is now maturing to the point where it is being considered by many laboratories for routine diagnostic use. The sensitivity, speed and reduced cost per sample make it a highly attractive platform compared to other sequencing modalities. Moreover, as we identify more genetic determinants of cancer there is a greater need to adopt multi-gene assays that can quickly and reliably sequence complete genes from individual patient samples. Whilst widespread and routine use of whole genome sequencing is likely to be a few years away, there are immediate opportunities to implement NGS for clinical use. Here we review the technology, methods and applications that can be immediately considered and some of the challenges that lie ahead.

Identifiers

PMID22147957
PMCPMC3219767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.