Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31929509›Full record

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.

Glenn E Palomaki, Philip Wyatt, Robert Glen Best, Nathalie Lepage, Edward R Ashwood, Rhona J Souers, John A Thorson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Glenn E PalomakiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Women & Infants Hospital and the Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. gpalomaki@ipmms.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6154-8449
Philip WyattEsoterix Genetic Laboratories, Santa Fe, NM, USA.
Robert Glen BestBiomedical Sciences, University of South Carolina School of Medicine/Prisma Health System, Greenville, SC, USA.
Nathalie LepageChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Edward R AshwoodUniversity of Colorado Hospital, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Rhona J SouersDepartment of Biostatistics, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL, USA.
John A ThorsonDepartment of Pathology, University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsDown SyndromeDNAFemaleHumansLaboratoriesPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisTrisomyTrisomy 13 SyndromeTrisomy 18 SyndromeUnited StatesCell-Free Nucleic AcidsDNAcell-free DNADown syndromeNIPSprenatal screeningproficiency testing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.