ReviewCureus2026
The Analytical Performance and Inter-laboratory Standardization of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Panels for Genetic Risk Stratification in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic risk stratification is fundamental to the clinical management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). While targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels have replaced traditional single-gene assays, significant inter-laboratory variability in assay design and bioinformatic pipelines persists. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the analytical performance and standardization of NGS panels used for AML risk stratification. Major databases were searched for studies reporting the analytical validation or inter-laboratory harmonization of NGS panels for AML compared to orthogonal reference standards (PCR/capillary electrophoresis). The primary outcomes were analytical concordance (overall percent agreement) and diagnostic accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to pool concordance rates. Heterogeneity was explored via meta-regression of assay limit of detection (LOD). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Seven studies comprising 775 patient samples met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analytical concordance between NGS and reference standards was 96.4% (95% CI: 86.9%-100.0%). Diagnostic accuracy was excellent, with a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) area under the curve of 0.98. However, significant heterogeneity was observed (I
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.