ArticlePloS one2015
Implementation of Cell Samples as Controls in National Proficiency Testing for Clopidogrel Therapy-Related CYP2C19 Genotyping in China: A Novel Approach.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratories are increasingly requested to perform CYP2C19 genetic testing when managing clopidogrel therapy, especially in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. To ensure high quality molecular testing and ascertain that the referring clinician has the correct information for CYP2C19 genotype-directed antiplatelet therapy, a proficiency testing scheme was set up to evaluate the laboratory performance for the entire testing process. Proficiency panels of 10 cell samples encompassing the common CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms were distributed to 62 participating laboratories for routine molecular testing and the responses were analyzed for accuracy of genotyping and the reporting of results. Data including the number of samples tested, the accreditation/certification status, and test methodology of each individual laboratory were also reviewed. Fifty-seven of the 62 participants correctly identified the CYP2C19 variants in all samples. There were six genotyping errors, with a corresponding analytical sensitivity of 98.5% (333/338 challenges; 95% confidence interval: 96.5-99.5%) and an analytic specificity of 99.6% (281/282; 95% confidence interval: 98.0-99.9%). Reports of the CYP2C19 genotyping results often lacked essential information. In conclusion, clinical laboratories demonstrated good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, the pharmacogenetic testing community requires additional education regarding the correct reporting of CYP2C19 genetic test results.
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.