Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30670879›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2019

A survey assessing adoption of the ACMG-AMP guidelines for interpreting sequence variants and identification of areas for continued improvement.

Annie Niehaus, Danielle R Azzariti, Steven M Harrison, Marina T DiStefano, Sarah E Hemphill, Ozlem Senol-Cosar, Heidi L Rehm

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Distinct rates of VUS reclassification are observed when subclassifying VUS by evidence level.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  7. VarGuideAtlas: a repository of variant interpretation guidelines.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Novel likely pathogenicBMJ case reports · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Annie NiehausCollege of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Danielle R AzzaritiLaboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners Healthcare, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Steven M HarrisonLaboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners Healthcare, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Marina T DiStefanoLaboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners Healthcare, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Sarah E HemphillLaboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners Healthcare, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ozlem Senol-CosarLaboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners Healthcare, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Heidi L RehmLaboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners Healthcare, Cambridge, MA, USA. hrehm@broadinstitute.org.

Funding

Resource ProjectU41HG006834 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI MARTIN, CHRISTA LESE, REHM, HEIDI L · 2013 to 2020
$26.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG006834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Genetics, MedicalPathology, MolecularAdenosine MonophosphateConsensusGenomicsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAdenosine Monophosphate

Identifiers

PMID30670879
PMCPMC7233466

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.