ArticleBlood advances2023
Current clinical practices and challenges in molecular testing: a GOAL Consortium Hematopathology Working Group report.
Article in Blood advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Refined ChIP-Seq Protocol for High-Quality Chromatin Profiling in Solid Tissues Using the Complete Genomics/MGI Sequencing Platform.Current protocols · 2025Article
- Genomic Evaluation of AML-Main Techniques and Novel Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Fusion Genes in Myeloid Malignancies.Cancers · 2024Review
- Population health management genomic new-born screens and multi-omics intercepts.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- Challenges and Opportunities for the Clinical Translation of Spatial Transcriptomics Technologies.Glomerular diseasesReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
While molecular testing of hematologic malignancies is now standard of care, there is variability in practice and testing capabilities between different academic laboratories, with common questions arising on how to best meet clinical expectations. A survey was sent to hematopathology subgroup members of the Genomics Organization for Academic Laboratories consortium to assess current and future practice and potentially establish a reference for peer institutions. Responses were received from 18 academic tertiary-care laboratories regarding next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel design, sequencing protocols and metrics, assay characteristics, laboratory operations, case reimbursement, and development plans. Differences in NGS panel size, use, and gene content were reported. Gene content for myeloid processes was reported to be generally excellent, while genes for lymphoid processes were less well covered. The turnaround time (TAT) for acute cases, including acute myeloid leukemia, was reported to range from 2 to 7 calendar days to 15 to 21 calendar days, with different approaches to achieving rapid TAT described. To help guide NGS panel design and standardize gene content, consensus gene lists based on current and future NGS panels in development were generated. Most survey respondents expected molecular testing at academic laboratories to continue to be viable in the future, with rapid TAT for acute cases likely to remain an important factor. Molecular testing reimbursement was reported to be a major concern. The results of this survey and subsequent discussions improve the shared understanding of differences in testing practices for hematologic malignancies between institutions and will help provide a more consistent level of patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.