Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38738445›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2024

Regulating Laboratory Tests: What Framework Would Best Support Safety and Validity?

Caroline Horrow, Aaron S Kesselheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2024. 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. Review
  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

2 authors.

Caroline HorrowProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.ORCID 0009-0004-0049-5047
Aaron S KesselheimProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School.ORCID 0000-0002-8867-2666

Funding

Arnold VenturesCommonwealth FundKaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy Points With increasing public attention to cases of inaccurate and misleading laboratory-developed tests, there have been calls for regulatory reform. To protect patients from faulty laboratory tests, we need a framework that balances comprehensive test review with laboratory flexibility. The Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT [In Vitro Clinical Test] Development (VALID) Act would have helped ensure laboratory test safety and validity through a much-needed expansion of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight. However, Congress did not pass the VALID Act in 2022, forcing the FDA to start the regulatory reform process on its own.

Indexed as

United States Food and Drug AdministrationClinical Laboratory TechniquesGovernment RegulationHumansPatient SafetyReproducibility of ResultsUnited StatesFood and Drug Administrationin vitro diagnosticmedical device legislation

Identifiers

PMID38738445
PMCPMC11576585

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.