Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29230253›Full record

ArticlePersonalized medicine2017

Barriers to clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing: a policy Delphi panel's solutions.

Donna A Messner, Pei Koay, Jennifer Al Naber, Robert Cook-Deegan, Mary Majumder, Gail Javitt, Rachel Dvoskin, Juli Bollinger, Margaret Curnutte, Amy L McGuire

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Personalized medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cost Analyses of Genomic Sequencing: Lessons Learned from the MedSeq Project.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2018
    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

10 authors.

Donna A MessnerCenter for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Pei KoayCenter for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Jennifer Al NaberCenter for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Robert Cook-DeeganSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society, and Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA.
Mary MajumderCenter for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Gail JavittJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Rachel DvoskinJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Juli BollingerJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Margaret CurnutteCenter for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Amy L McGuireCenter for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 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

aimIdentify solutions to the most important policy barriers to the clinical adoption of next-generation sequencing. MATERIALS &

methodsFour-round modified policy Delphi with a multistakeholder panel of 48 experts. The panel deliberated policy solutions to (previously reported) challenges deemed most important to address.

resultsThe group advocated using consensus panels to promote consistency in payer policies and to standardize test reporting, and favored making genomic data-sharing a condition of regulatory clearance, certification, or accreditation processes. They were split on the role of US FDA.

conclusionPanelists found common ground on solutions for health plan coverage policy consistency, data-sharing, and standardizing reporting, but were sharply divided on the role of the FDA in mitigating risks to patients.

Indexed as

clinical data reportingclinical genomicscoverage and reimbursementintellectual propertynext-generation sequencingpersonalized medicinepolicyregulation

Identifiers

PMID29230253
PMCPMC5722256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.