Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27668172›Full record

ArticleApplied & translational genomics2016

Barriers to clinical adoption of next generation sequencing: Perspectives of a policy Delphi panel.

Donna A Messner, Jennifer Al Naber, Pei Koay, Robert Cook-Deegan, Mary Majumder, Gail Javitt, Patricia Deverka, Rachel Dvoskin, Juli Bollinger, Margaret Curnutte and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Applied & translational genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Current and Future Development in Lung Cancer Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Who's on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Review
  20. Integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary care.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2017
    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

12 authors.

Donna A MessnerCenter for Medical Technology Policy, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 631, Baltimore, MD 21207, USA.
Jennifer Al NaberCenter for Medical Technology Policy, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 631, Baltimore, MD 21207, USA.
Pei KoayCenter for Medical Technology Policy, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 631, Baltimore, MD 21207, USA.
Robert Cook-DeeganDuke University, Box 90239, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Mary MajumderBaylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Gail JavittJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Patricia DeverkaAmerican Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
Rachel DvoskinJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Juli BollingerJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Margaret CurnutteBaylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Subhashini ChandrasekharanDuke Global Health Institute, Durham, NC 27710, United States.
Amy McGuireBaylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Funding

Clinical Integration of Whole Genome Sequencing: A Policy AnalysisR01HG006460 · NHGRI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCGUIRE, AMY L · 2012 to 2015
$1.8M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006460
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research aims to inform policymakers by engaging expert stakeholders to identify, prioritize, and deliberate the most important and tractable policy barriers to the clinical adoption of next generation sequencing (NGS). A 4-round Delphi policy study was done with a multi-stakeholder panel of 48 experts. The first 2 rounds of online questionnaires (reported here) assessed the importance and tractability of 28 potential barriers to clinical adoption of NGS across 3 major policy domains: intellectual property, coverage and reimbursement, and FDA regulation. We found that: 1) proprietary variant databases are seen as a key challenge, and a potentially intractable one; 2) payer policies were seen as a frequent barrier, especially a perceived inconsistency in standards for coverage; 3) relative to other challenges considered, FDA regulation was not strongly perceived as a barrier to clinical use of NGS. Overall the results indicate a perceived need for policies to promote data-sharing, and a desire for consistent payer coverage policies that maintain reasonably high standards of evidence for clinical utility, limit testing to that needed for clinical care decisions, and yet also flexibly allow for clinician discretion to use genomic testing in uncertain circumstances of high medical need.

Indexed as

Clinical genomicsCoverage and reimbursementFDA regulationIntellectual propertyNext generation sequencingPersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID27668172
PMCPMC5025465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.