Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30175241›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2018

The ICR639 CPG NGS validation series: A resource to assess analytical sensitivity of cancer predisposition gene testing.

Shazia Mahamdallie, Elise Ruark, Esty Holt, Emma Poyastro-Pearson, Anthony Renwick, Ann Strydom, Sheila Seal, Nazneen Rahman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shazia MahamdallieDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.
Elise RuarkDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9373-4059
Esty HoltDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2436-7811
Emma Poyastro-PearsonDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8191-4928
Anthony RenwickDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.
Ann StrydomDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.
Sheila SealDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.
Nazneen RahmanDivision of Genetics & Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5NG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4376-0440
Institute of Cancer Research · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The analytical sensitivity of a next generation sequencing (NGS) test reflects the ability of the test to detect real sequence variation. The evaluation of analytical sensitivity relies on the availability of gold-standard, validated, benchmarking datasets. For NGS analysis the availability of suitable datasets has been limited. Most laboratories undertake small scale evaluations using in-house data, and/or rely on

Indexed as

analytical sensitivityBRCA1 and BRCA2cancer predisposition genegenetic testingnext generation sequencingvalidationvariant benchmarking

Identifiers

PMID30175241
PMCPMC6081973
OpenAlexW2807835573

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.