Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38911045›Full record

ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024

The US FDA's proposed rule on laboratory-developed tests: Impacts on clinical laboratory testing.

Leslie Smith, Lisa A Carricaburu, Jonathan R Genzen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 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. Review
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

3 authors.

Leslie SmithARUP Laboratories, 500 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
Lisa A CarricaburuARUP Laboratories, 500 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.
Jonathan R GenzenARUP Laboratories, 500 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To solicit quantifiable feedback from clinical laboratorians on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed rule to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as medical devices. Design and Methods: A ten-item questionnaire was developed and submitted to clinical laboratory customers of ARUP Laboratories, a national nonprofit clinical laboratory of the University of Utah Department of Pathology. Results: Of 503 clinical laboratory respondents, only 41 (8 %) support the FDA's proposed rule. 67 % of respondents work in laboratories that perform LDTs and were therefore asked additional questions regarding the proposed rule. 84 % of these respondents believe that the proposed rule will negatively impact their laboratories, while only 3 % believe that they have the financial resources to pay for FDA user fees. 61 % of respondents anticipate removing tests from their laboratory menus if the proposed rule is enacted, while an additional 33 % indicated that they do not yet know. Only 11 % of respondents believe that they would pursue FDA submissions for all of their existing LDTs if the final rule is enacted. The vast majority of respondents (>80 %) were either 'extremely concerned' or 'very concerned' about the impact of the proposed rule on patient access to essential testing, financial and personnel resources to comply, innovation, the FDA's ability to implement the rule, and send-out costs and test prices. Conclusions: The majority of clinical laboratorians surveyed do not support the FDA's proposed rule on LDTs and report having insufficient resources to comply with the rule if it is enacted.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory Improvement AmendmentsClinical laboratory regulationsFood and Drug AdministrationLaboratory-developed tests

Identifiers

PMID38911045
PMCPMC11193028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.