ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2026
Piloting an Interpretive External Quality Assurance Model for Genomic Testing for Childhood Syndromes and Intellectual Disability.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few external quality assurance programs adequately address the complexity of largescale human genome or exome analysis. To bridge this gap, Australian Genomics and the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (QAP) developed a pilot interpretive module focused on genomic testing for childhood syndromes and intellectual disabilities. The program assessed laboratories' proficiency in interpreting complex genomic data for pediatric disorders. Six clinically accredited laboratories analyzed standardized genomic, phenotypic, and referral data. Reports were evaluated using a rubric adapted from the European Molecular Genetics Quality Network model, covering genotyping, variant classification, interpretation, and report content. Feedback included comparative performance results and individual recommendations. All laboratories correctly identified and classified target variants, but variation was observed in report structure, inclusion of genetic counseling advice, and application of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology classification framework. Participants noted that data-sharing limitations and differences in local reporting practices contributed to scoring inconsistencies. The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of a disease-specific interpretive QAP for complex pediatric genomic testing. Future rounds will address logistical challenges, refine scoring criteria, and strengthen standardization, supporting broader implementation. This initiative lays the groundwork for integrating specialized QAP modules into routine practice to improve diagnostic accuracy and consistency across 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.