ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2013
Getting our priorities straight: a novel framework for stakeholder-informed prioritization of cancer genomics research.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- Article
- Engaging Patient Advisory Committees to Inform a Genomic Cancer Risk Study: Lessons for Future Efforts.The Permanente journal · 2022Article
- Integrating stakeholder feedback in translational genomics research: an ethnographic analysis of a study protocol's evolution.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrioritization of translational research on genomic tests is critically important given the rapid pace of innovation in genomics. The goal of this study was to evaluate a stakeholder-informed priority-setting framework in cancer genomics.
methodsAn external stakeholder advisory group including patients/consumers, payers, clinicians, and test developers used a modified Delphi approach to prioritize six candidate cancer genomic technologies during a 1-day meeting. Nine qualitative priority-setting criteria were considered. We used a directed, qualitative content-analysis approach to investigate the themes of the meeting discussion.
resultsStakeholders primarily discussed six of the original nine criteria: clinical benefits, population health impacts, economic impacts, analytical and clinical validity, clinical trial implementation and feasibility, and market factors. Several new priority-setting criteria were identified from the workshop transcript, including "patient-reported outcomes," "clinical trial ethics," and "trial recruitment." The new criteria were incorporated with prespecified criteria to develop a novel priority-setting framework.
conclusionThis study highlights key criteria that stakeholders can consider when prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer genomic applications. Applying an explicit priority-setting framework to inform investment in comparative effectiveness research can help to ensure that critical factors are weighed when deciding between many potential research questions and trial designs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.