Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28661487›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2018

CAP/ACMG proficiency testing for biochemical genetics laboratories: a summary of performance.

Devin Oglesbee, Tina M Cowan, Marzia Pasquali, Timothy C Wood, Karen E Weck, Thomas Long, Glenn E Palomaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Laboratory analysis of organic acids, 2018 update: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
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.

Devin OglesbeeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Tina M CowanDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Marzia PasqualiDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Timothy C WoodGreenwood Genetics Center, Greenwood, South Carolina, USA.
Karen E WeckDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Thomas LongDepartment of Biostatistics, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois, USA.
Glenn E PalomakiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Women and Infants Hospital, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeTesting for inborn errors of metabolism is performed by clinical laboratories worldwide, each utilizing laboratory-developed procedures. We sought to summarize performance in the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) proficiency testing (PT) program and identify opportunities for improving laboratory quality. When evaluating PT data, we focused on a subset of laboratories that have participated in at least one survey since 2010.MethodsAn analysis of laboratory performance (2004 to 2014) on the Biochemical Genetics PT Surveys, a program administered by CAP and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Analytical and interpretive performance was evaluated for four tests: amino acids, organic acids, acylcarnitines, and mucopolysaccharides.ResultsSince 2010, 150 laboratories have participated in at least one of four PT surveys. Analytic sensitivities ranged from 88.2 to 93.4%, while clinical sensitivities ranged from 82.4 to 91.0%. Performance was higher for US participants and for more recent challenges. Performance was lower for challenges with subtle findings or complex analytical patterns.ConclusionUS clinical biochemical genetics laboratory proficiency is satisfactory, with a minority of laboratories accounting for the majority of errors. Our findings underscore the complex nature of clinical biochemical genetics testing and highlight the necessity of continuous quality management.

Indexed as

Genetics, MedicalGenetic TestingHumansLaboratoriesLaboratory Proficiency TestingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID28661487
PMCPMC5763156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.