Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23078403›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012

Evaluating genomic tests from bench to bedside: a practical framework.

Jennifer S Lin, Matthew Thompson, Katrina A B Goddard, Margaret A Piper, Carl Heneghan, Evelyn P Whitlock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis with patients and GPs: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Mapping the Ethics of Translational Genomics: Situating Return of Results and Navigating the Research-Clinical Divide.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2015
    Article
  9. Article
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

6 authors.

Jennifer S LinCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N, Interstate Ave, Portland , OR 97227, USA. Jennifer.S.Lin@kpchr.org
Matthew Thompson
Katrina A B Goddard
Margaret A Piper
Carl Heneghan
Evelyn P Whitlock

Funding

Comparative effectiveness in genomic & personalized medicine for colon cancerRC2CA148471 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GODDARD, KATRINA A., KUSHI, LAWRENCE H · 2009 to 2009
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS RC 2-CA148471
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of genomic tests is one of the most significant technological advances in medical testing in recent decades. As these tests become increasingly available, so does the need for a pragmatic framework to evaluate the evidence base and evidence gaps in order to facilitate informed decision-making. In this article we describe such a framework that can provide a common language and benchmarks for different stakeholders of genomic testing. Each stakeholder can use this framework to specify their respective thresholds for decision-making, depending on their perspective and particular needs. This framework is applicable across a broad range of test applications and can be helpful in the application and communication of a regulatory science for genomic testing. Our framework builds upon existing work and incorporates principles familiar to researchers involved in medical testing (both diagnostic and prognostic) generally, as well as those involved in genomic testing. This framework is organized around six phases in the development of genomic tests beginning with marker identification and ending with population impact, and highlights the important knowledge gaps that need to be filled in establishing the clinical relevance of a test. Our framework focuses on the clinical appropriateness of the four main dimensions of test research questions (population/setting, intervention/index test, comparators/reference test, and outcomes) rather than prescribing a hierarchy of study designs that should be used to address each phase.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23078403
PMCPMC3538070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.