ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2017
Next-generation sequencing of
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive review of male breast cancer: Understanding a rare condition.Oncology research · 2025Review
- PredictingAnnals of medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Detection of genomic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 across gastric cancer patients using next generation sequencing.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Available Variant Calling Tools for Oxford Nanopore Sequencing in Breast Cancer.Genes · 2022Article
- Analysis of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes using next-generation sequencing in women with triple negative breast cancer from South India.Molecular biology reports · 2022Article
- Consistency of variant interpretations among bioinformaticians and clinical geneticists in hereditary cancer panels.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Feasibility of targeted cascade genetic testing in the family members of BRCA1/2 gene pathogenic variant/likely pathogenic variant carriers.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Review
- An electrochemiluminescence resonance energy transfer biosensor for the detection of circulating tumor DNA from blood plasma.iScience · 2021Article
- Preoperative diagnosis of BRCA1/2 mutation impacts decision-making for risk-reducing mastectomy in breast cancer patients.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Management of HBOC in India: An Expert Consensus Document from Indian Society of Medical and Pediatric Oncology.JCO global oncology · 2020Article
- Novel bioinformatics quality control metric for next-generation sequencing experiments in the clinical context.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the clinical role of rapid next-generation sequencing (NGS) for identifying
methodsTwenty-four paired samples from 12 patients were analyzed in this prospective study to compare the performance of NGS to the Sanger method. Both NGS and Sanger sequencing were performed in 2 different laboratories using blood samples from patients with breast cancer. We then analyzed the accuracy of NGS in terms of variant calling and determining concordance rates of
resultsThe overall concordance rate of
conclusionNGS yielded comparably accurate results to Sanger sequencing and in a much shorter time with respect to
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.