ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2012
Evaluating genomic tests from bench to bedside: a practical framework.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Recommendations Around Frameworks for Evaluating Scientific Validity in Nutritional Genomics.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Pooled 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
- How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Pooled it
- 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 · 2024Article
- Patient-centred outcomes of imaging tests: recommendations for patients, clinicians and researchers.BMJ quality & safety · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluating diagnostic strategies for early detection of cancer: the CanTest framework.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- 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 · 2015Article
- Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate.PLoS biology · 2013Article
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
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
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.