Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31575975›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of cancer2019

CM-Path Molecular Diagnostics Forum-consensus statement on the development and implementation of molecular diagnostic tests in the United Kingdom.

Philip S Macklin, Nischalan Pillay, Jessica L Lee, Helen Pitman, Sophie Scott, Jayson Wang, Clare Craig, J Louise Jones, Karin A Oien, Richard Colling and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 53% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Philip S MacklinDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. philip.macklin@ouh.nhs.uk.
Nischalan PillayUniversity College London Cancer Institute, London, UK.
Jessica L LeeStrategy and Initiatives, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
Helen PitmanCM-Path Programme Manager, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
Sophie ScottMedical Science Liaison (Europe), Guardant Health, London, UK.
Jayson WangMolecular Pathology Lead, Department of Cellular Pathology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Clare CraigGenomics England, London, UK.
J Louise JonesGenomics England, London, UK.
Karin A OienDepartment of Pathology, The Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Richard CollingDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Sarah E CouplandNorth West Cancer Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Clare VerrillDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. clare.verrill@nds.ox.ac.uk.
CM-Path Molecular Diagnostics working group
London Cancer · GBNational Cancer Research Institute · GBSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBGenomics England · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18387Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/N005813/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathology has evolved from a purely morphological description of cellular alterations in disease to our current ability to interrogate tissues with multiple 'omics' technologies. By utilising these techniques and others, 'molecular diagnostics' acts as the cornerstone of precision/personalised medicine by attempting to match the underlying disease mechanisms to the most appropriate targeted therapy.

methodsDespite the promises of molecular diagnostics, significant barriers have impeded its widespread clinical adoption. Thus, the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Cellular Molecular Pathology (CM-Path) initiative convened a national Molecular Diagnostics Forum to facilitate closer collaboration between clinicians, academia, industry, regulators and other key stakeholders in an attempt to overcome these.

resultsWe agreed on a consensus 'roadmap' that should be followed during development and implementation of new molecular diagnostic tests. We identified key barriers to efficient implementation and propose possible solutions to these. In addition, we discussed the recent reconfiguration of molecular diagnostic services in NHS England and its likely impacts.

conclusionsWe anticipate that this consensus statement will provide practical advice to those involved in the development of novel molecular diagnostic tests. Although primarily focusing on test adoption within the United Kingdom, we also refer to international guidelines to maximise the applicability of our recommendations.

Indexed as

ConsensusHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPathology, MolecularPrecision MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID31575975
PMCPMC6889373
OpenAlexW2978159048

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.