Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33927380›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2021

Next-generation sequencing for constitutional variants in the clinical laboratory, 2021 revision: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Catherine Rehder, Lora J H Bean, David Bick, Elizabeth Chao, Wendy Chung, Soma Das, Julianne O'Daniel, Heidi Rehm, Vandana Shashi, Lisa M Vincent and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
16.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Novel Compound Heterozygous Variants inJournal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine RehderDepartment of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Lora J H BeanDepartment of Human Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
David BickHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Elizabeth ChaoDivision of Genetics and Genomics, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Wendy ChungDepartments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Soma DasDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Julianne O'DanielDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Heidi RehmCenter for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Vandana ShashiDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Lisa M VincentDivision of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Children's National Health System, Washington, DC, USA.
ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee
Duke University · USChildren's National · USColumbia University · USEmory University · USHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Chicago · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are now established in clinical laboratories as a primary testing modality in genomic medicine. These technologies have reduced the cost of large-scale sequencing by several orders of magnitude. It is now cost-effective to analyze an individual with disease-targeted gene panels, exome sequencing, or genome sequencing to assist in the diagnosis of a wide array of clinical scenarios. While clinical validation and use of NGS in many settings is established, there are continuing challenges as technologies and the associated informatics evolve. To assist clinical laboratories with the validation of NGS methods and platforms, the ongoing monitoring of NGS testing to ensure quality results, and the interpretation and reporting of variants found using these technologies, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) has developed the following technical standards.

Indexed as

Genetics, MedicalLaboratoriesGenetic TestingGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33927380
OpenAlexW3157892788

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.