ArticlePloS one2018
Workload measurement for molecular genetics laboratory: A survey study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI in variant analysis: fast track to genetic diagnoses.Human genetics · 2026Review
- Real-World Data and Budget Impact Analysis (BIA): Evaluation of a Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Diagnostic Approach in Two Orthopedic Rare Diseases.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- In-silico Analysis ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Genetic testing offer for inherited neuromuscular diseases within the EURO-NMD reference network: A European survey study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Case for genome sequencing in infants and children with rare, undiagnosed or genetic diseases.Journal of medical genetics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic testing availability in the health care system is rapidly increasing, along with the diffusion of next-generation sequencing (NGS) into diagnostics. These issues make imperative the knowledge-drive optimization of testing in the clinical setting. Time estimations of wet laboratory procedure in Italian molecular laboratories offering genetic diagnosis were evaluated to provide data suitable to adjust efficiency and optimize health policies and costs. A survey was undertaken by the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU). Forty-two laboratories participated. For most molecular techniques, the most time-consuming steps are those requiring an intensive manual intervention or in which the human bias can affect the global process time-performances. For NGS, for which the study surveyed also the interpretation time, the latter represented the step that requiring longer times. We report the first survey describing the hands-on times requested for different molecular diagnostics procedures, including NGS. The analysis of this survey suggests the need of some improvements to optimize some analytical processes, such as the implementation of laboratory information management systems to minimize manual procedures in pre-analytical steps which may affect accuracy that represents the major challenge to be faced in the future setting of molecular genetics laboratory.
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.