2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2020.10.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Translational Diagnostics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our group has been an early adopter of ES in the outpatient setting, and since there are only a few studies that capture all the processes involved in the clinical implementation of NGS, we describe our program in the context of the extant literature. These literature reports can be categorized into two types: standard clinical programs (relying on clinical ES and standard practice processes) and hybrid programs (combining research ES with standard practice processes) 7–13 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Our group has been an early adopter of ES in the outpatient setting, and since there are only a few studies that capture all the processes involved in the clinical implementation of NGS, we describe our program in the context of the extant literature. These literature reports can be categorized into two types: standard clinical programs (relying on clinical ES and standard practice processes) and hybrid programs (combining research ES with standard practice processes) 7–13 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these practice settings, time‐ and resource‐intensive research activities, such as extensive personnel effort, are mostly not feasible 11,14 . Patient selection was broad, mirroring professional guidelines by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), 16 criteria that are less stringent than in hybrid programs 10,12,13 . Patient selection can influence diagnosis rates of the four clinical programs that we reviewed, one had a low threshold for utilizing ES, with a lower diagnosis rate of 25%, 3 with others that specified inclusion criteria or utilized multi‐disciplinary review boards having higher diagnosis rates of 31%–43% 8,11,14 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations