Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29474574›Full record

ReviewHuman molecular genetics2018

Evidence-based medicine and big genomic data.

John P A Ioannidis, Muin J Khoury

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human molecular genetics, 2018. 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. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. The Impact of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Responses to Precision Medicine Research.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Artificial Intelligence and Personalized Medicine.Cancer treatment and research · 2019
    Article
  12. Implications of the ABCD study for developmental neuroscience.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  13. Overview of precision oncology trials: challenges and opportunities.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2018
    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

2 authors.

John P A IoannidisStanford Prevention Research Center, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), and Departments of Medicine, Health Research and Policy, Biomedical Data Science, and Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Muin J KhouryOffice of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic and other related big data (Big Genomic Data, BGD for short) are ushering a new era of precision medicine. This overview discusses whether principles of evidence-based medicine hold true for BGD and how they should be operationalized in the current era. Major evidence-based medicine principles include the systematic identification, description and analysis of the validity and utility of BGD, the combination of individual clinical expertise with individual patient needs and preferences, and the focus on obtaining experimental evidence, whenever possible. BGD emphasize information of single patients with an overemphasis on N-of-1 trials to personalize treatment. However, large-scale comparative population data remain indispensable for meaningful translation of BGD personalized information. The impact of BGD on population health depends on its ability to affect large segments of the population. While several frameworks have been proposed to facilitate and standardize decision making for use of genomic tests, there are new caveats that arise from BGD that extend beyond the limitations that were applicable for more simple genetic tests. Non-evidence-based use of BGD may be harmful and result in major waste of healthcare resources. Randomized controlled trials will continue to be the strongest arbitrator for the clinical utility of genomic technologies, including BGD. Research on BGD needs to focus not only on finding robust predictive associations (clinical validity) but also more importantly on evaluating the balance of health benefits and potential harms (clinical utility), as well as implementation challenges. Appropriate features of such useful research on BGD are discussed.

Indexed as

Big DataEvidence-Based MedicineGenetic TestingGenomicsHumansPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID29474574
PMCPMC6247896

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.