ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2015
Molecular genetic testing for cystic fibrosis: laboratory performance on the College of American Pathologists external proficiency surveys.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosing cystic fibrosis in low- and middle-income countries: challenges and strategies.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Review
- Cost-effectiveness of the CFTR gene-sequencing test for asymptomatic carriers in the Colombian populationBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2020Article
- GenomeTrakr proficiency testing for foodborne pathogen surveillance: an exercise from 2015.Microbial genomics · 2018Article
- CAP/ACMG proficiency testing for biochemical genetics laboratories: a summary of performance.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMolecular testing for cystic fibrosis mutations is widespread and routine in reproductive decision making and diagnosis. Our objective was to assess the level of performance of laboratories for this test.
methodsThe College of American Pathologists administers external proficiency testing with multiple DNA samples distributed biannually. RESULTS are analyzed, reviewed, and graded by the joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Committee. Assessment is based on genotype and associated clinical interpretation.
resultsOverall, 357 clinical laboratories participated in the proficiency testing survey between 2003 and 2013 (322 in the United States and 35 international). In 2013, US participants reported performing nearly 120,000 tests monthly. Analytical sensitivity and specificity of US laboratories were 98.8% (95% confidence interval: 98.4-99.1%) and 99.6% (95% confidence interval: 99.4-99.7%), respectively. Analytical sensitivity improved between 2003 and 2008 (from 97.9 to 99.3%; P = 0.007) and remained steady thereafter. Clinical interpretation matched the intended response for 98.8, 86.0, and 91.0% of challenges with no, one, or two mutations, respectively. International laboratories performed similarly. DISCUSSION: Laboratory testing for cystic fibrosis in the United States has improved since 2003, and these data demonstrate a high level of quality. Neither the number of samples tested nor test methodology affected performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25077647What 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.