ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2025
External quality assessment of genetic testing for hereditary hearing loss in Shanghai and other regions.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Hereditary hearing loss is one of the most common birth defects in humans. Genetic screen in pregnant women and newborns could provide prenatal intervention or guidance on the early diagnosis and treatment. Currently, this screen has been widely applied; however, its accuracy and reliability have not been determined. The objective of this pioneering study was to evaluate the performance of clinical laboratories in Shanghai and other regions for their ability to analyze the genetic variants related with hearing loss. Methods: The EQA program were carried out twice a year. We generated a sample panel consisting of five dry blood spots with genomic DNA from different cell lines with normal whole blood as the matrix. The panel included four samples with nine different pathogenic variants of Results: Thirty and twenty-nine clinical laboratories participated in the two EQA scheme in 2023, respectively. 28 (93.33 %) and 27 (93.10 %) laboratories achieved an acceptable or superior performance score(≥80). There were ten errors with eight false-negative and two false-positive results in the first EQA scheme, and seven errors with five false-negative and two false-positive in the second EQA scheme. Conclusions: The results indicate that the majority of the clinical genetic analysis of deafness-related genes were satisfactory in China, while some participant laboratories needed further improvement. In addition, external quality assessment was demonstrated as an important method for monitoring the performance of clinical laboratories.
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.