ArticleJournal of medical genetics1994
Evaluation of laboratory methods for cystic fibrosis carrier screening: reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and costs.
Article in Journal of medical genetics, 1994. 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.
- Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We report a comparative evaluation of three different laboratory methods for screening large numbers of mouthwash DNA samples for common cystic fibrosis mutations. Sensitivity, specificity, and costs of ARMS (allele refractory mutation detection system), dot blotting, and a deletion/digest/PAGE method (multiplex PCR of exons 10 and 11, digest with HincII followed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE)) were assessed. ARMS was the most reliable and sensitive method and so was considered more suitable than the cheaper deletion/digest/PAGE. As well as being less reliable than ARMS, the dot blotting method assessed was considerably more costly. ARMS was the best laboratory method for CF screening tested.
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.