ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2019
Designing Studies Acceptable for Abstraction and Inclusion in Evidence-Based Laboratory Practice Guidelines.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-Counterpoint: Should We Be Performing Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Infectious Disease Diagnosis in the Clinical Laboratory?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Impact of Rapid Molecular Detection of Respiratory Viruses on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Management.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Expansion of technologies, changing infrastructure, and dwindling resources have produced the need for health care reform and changes in clinical laboratories. The health care model will have to shift increasingly from a fee-for-service model to a value-based model. Laboratories will have to focus more on evidence-based outcome studies evaluating the effects of their preanalytical and postanalytical practices on real patient outcomes. Although well-designed clinical trials and multicenter studies are needed to determine the effects of laboratory processes on outcomes, there has been concern that too few well-designed studies have been published. To help improve the quality of study design and to facilitate reporting transparency, several method statements have been developed. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) initiative was recently updated, listing 30 items deemed crucial for transparent reporting of studies, thereby allowing the creation of a robust database for clinical practice guidelines. Three methods describing the assessment of the quality of data on which to base recommendations for such guidelines are also available. Close attention must be given to study design so that parameters ensuring study quality are met, thereby allowing inclusion of the study data in the formulation of evidence-based laboratory best practices guidelines.
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.