ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2020
Assessment of laboratories offering cell-free (cf) DNA screening for Down syndrome: results of the 2018 College of American Pathology External Educational Exercises.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2020. 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.
- Clinical Testing for Tumor Cell-Free DNA: College of American Pathologists Proficiency Programs Reveal Practice Trends.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Consequences of imprecision in fetal fraction estimation on performance of cell-free DNA screening for Down syndrome.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSummarize and interpret results from exercises distributed to laboratories offering cell-free (cf) DNA screening for Down syndrome.
methodsThe College of American Pathologists distributed three patient-derived plasma specimens twice in 2018. Sequencing platforms, test methods, results, and responses to supplemental questions were collected. Results were not graded but discrepancies were identified.
resultsSixty-five laboratories from six continents enrolled; six provided no results. The most common methodology was shotgun/genome sequencing (39/56, 70%). Overall, 40% of the gestational or maternal age responses were incorrect but 45% of the errors were corrected by the next distribution. Fetal fractions from 54 responding laboratories generally agreed with the intended response. No genotyping errors occurred (40/40 for trisomy 21 and 226/226 for euploid challenges) but 10 additional tests failed (3.6%). All 213 fetal sex calls were correct. Participants reported their clinical text for a Down syndrome screen positive test; 39% were classified as inadequate or misleading.
conclusionPatient-derived materials are suitable for all enrolled technologies/methodologies, but collecting material is challenging. Suggested clinical text includes the terms "screen positive" and "screen negative." Overall, laboratories performed well. Future efforts will focus on potential manufactured samples, clarifying results reporting and including additional chromosome abnormalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31929509What 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.