ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2024
The US FDA's proposed rule on laboratory-developed tests: Impacts on clinical laboratory testing.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From fructose to the future: liver disease biomarkers and their prognostic value in acute liver failure.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2025Review
- Key considerations when implementing new diagnostic technologies in routine practice.Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.