ArticleThe pharmacogenomics journal2014
Interpreting the clinical utility of a pharmacogenomic marker based on observational association studies.
Article in The pharmacogenomics journal, 2014. 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.
- How are we evaluating the cost-effectiveness of companion biomarkers for targeted cancer therapies? A systematic review.BMC cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Assessment of clinically actionable pharmacogenetic markers to stratify anti-seizure medications.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2023Article
- Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Tool for Personalized Drug Therapy Optimization.Pharmaceutics · 2020Review
- The Routine Clinical use of Pharmacogenetic Tests: What it Will Require?Pharmaceutical research · 2017Review
- The molecular heterogeneity of sporadic colorectal cancer with different tumor sites in Chinese patients.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Economic evaluations of personalized medicine: existing challenges and current developments.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is increasingly recognized that the clinical utility of a pharmacogenomic marker is a fundamental characteristic influencing the likelihood of successful clinical translation. Although appropriately designed and executed randomized controlled trials generally provide the most valid evidence for the clinical utility of a pharmacogenomic marker, such evidence may not always be available. Observational pharmacogenomic association studies are a common form of evidence available, but the assessment of clinical utility based on such evidence is often not straightforward. This paper aims to provide insight into this issue using a range of illustrative examples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24018622What 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.