Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39154099›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2024

Public Perspectives on Direct-to-Consumer Testing Oversight.

Sharon Jiang, David Lebo, Thomas Schultz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Sharon JiangSchool of Pharmacy, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. sharon.jiang@temple.edu.
David LeboSchool of Pharmacy, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Thomas SchultzSchool of Pharmacy, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The FDA published a final rule for Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests in the Federal Register on May 6, 2024, which aims to ensure the safety and effectiveness of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) by amending current regulations. The rule also includes a policy to phase out the FDA's general enforcement discretion approach for LDTs, aligning them with other In Vitro Diagnostic Devices. Notably, direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing is exempt from this policy shift, as the FDA believes this category of tests has already met applicable requirements. This rule was first proposed in the Federal Register on October 3, 2023. The publication of this proposed rule sparked a considerable volume of public reactions during the comment period of the rule-making process, comprising general sentiment, key concerns, and suggestions. This commentary analyzes these concerns, particularly focusing on DTC tests, and offers recommendations, including reassessing the FDA's enforcement discretion for hybrid DTC tests, advocating for clear guidance on clinical oversight, and prioritizing a risk-based enforcement approach. Additionally, enhancing public education about the risks of DTC testing is crucial for safeguarding public health.

Indexed as

Direct-To-Consumer Screening and TestingPublic OpinionUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationHumansUnited StatesDirect-to-consumerDTC regulationDTC testFDA enforcement discretionFDA proposed rule on LDT

Identifiers

PMID39154099

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.