ReviewHuman molecular genetics2018
Evidence-based medicine and big genomic data.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Value Assessment Frameworks Used within Health Technology Assessment of Omics Technologies and Their Actual Adoption from HTA Agencies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- ENIGMA and global neuroscience: A decade of large-scale studies of the brain in health and disease across more than 40 countries.Translational psychiatry · 2020Pooled it
- The Potential of Evidence-Based Clinical Intake Tools to Discover or Ground Prevalence of Symptoms Using Real-Life Digital Health Encounters: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Review
- Clinical trial design in the era of precision medicine.Genome medicine · 2022Review
- Status of N-of-1 Trials in Chronic Pain Management: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2021Review
- The Impact of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Responses to Precision Medicine Research.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2021Article
- Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Construction of Clinical Pathway Information Management System under the Guidance of Evidence-Based Medicine.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- The Population Health OutcomEs aNd Information EXchange (PHOENIX) Program - A Transformative Approach to Reduce the Burden of Chronic Disease.Online journal of public health informatics · 2020Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Personalized Medicine.Cancer treatment and research · 2019Article
- Implications of the ABCD study for developmental neuroscience.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2018Article
- Overview of precision oncology trials: challenges and opportunities.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.