Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27510831›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2016

Assuring the Quality of Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Microbiology and Public Health Laboratories.

Amy S Gargis, Lisa Kalman, Ira M Lubin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A comparative review of three cloud-based platforms for microbial whole genome sequencing analysis.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 16Bioanalysis · 2024
    Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Amy S GargisDivision of Preparedness and Emerging Infections, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA AGargis@cdc.gov.
Lisa KalmanDivision of Laboratory Systems, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ira M LubinDivision of Laboratory Systems, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical microbiology and public health laboratories are beginning to utilize next-generation sequencing (NGS) for a range of applications. This technology has the potential to transform the field by providing approaches that will complement, or even replace, many conventional laboratory tests. While the benefits of NGS are significant, the complexities of these assays require an evolving set of standards to ensure testing quality. Regulatory and accreditation requirements, professional guidelines, and best practices that help ensure the quality of NGS-based tests are emerging. This review highlights currently available standards and guidelines for the implementation of NGS in the clinical and public health laboratory setting, and it includes considerations for NGS test validation, quality control procedures, proficiency testing, and reference materials.

Indexed as

Quality ControlAccreditationHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLaboratoriesLaboratory Proficiency TestingPractice Guidelines as TopicPublic HealthQuality Assurance, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID27510831
PMCPMC5121372

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.