Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25077647›Full record

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.

Elaine Lyon, Iris Schrijver, Karen E Weck, Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez, C Sue Richards, Glenn E Palomaki, CAP/ACMG Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Committee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CAP/ACMG proficiency testing for biochemical genetics laboratories: a summary of performance.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    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

7 authors.

Elaine Lyon1] Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA [2] ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Iris Schrijver1] Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA [2] Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Karen E Weck1] Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA [2] Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Andrea Ferreira-GonzalezDepartment of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
C Sue RichardsKnight Diagnostic Laboratories, Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Glenn E PalomakiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Women & Infants Hospital, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
CAP/ACMG Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance RegulatorData CollectionGenetic TestingHumansLaboratoriesLaboratory Proficiency TestingMutationSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesCFTR protein, humanCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator

Identifiers

PMID25077647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.