Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Oct 19:12:117.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-117.

Evaluating genomic tests from bench to bedside: a practical framework

Affiliations

Evaluating genomic tests from bench to bedside: a practical framework

Jennifer S Lin et al. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. .

Abstract

The development of genomic tests is one of the most significant technological advances in medical testing in recent decades. As these tests become increasingly available, so does the need for a pragmatic framework to evaluate the evidence base and evidence gaps in order to facilitate informed decision-making. In this article we describe such a framework that can provide a common language and benchmarks for different stakeholders of genomic testing. Each stakeholder can use this framework to specify their respective thresholds for decision-making, depending on their perspective and particular needs. This framework is applicable across a broad range of test applications and can be helpful in the application and communication of a regulatory science for genomic testing. Our framework builds upon existing work and incorporates principles familiar to researchers involved in medical testing (both diagnostic and prognostic) generally, as well as those involved in genomic testing. This framework is organized around six phases in the development of genomic tests beginning with marker identification and ending with population impact, and highlights the important knowledge gaps that need to be filled in establishing the clinical relevance of a test. Our framework focuses on the clinical appropriateness of the four main dimensions of test research questions (population/setting, intervention/index test, comparators/reference test, and outcomes) rather than prescribing a hierarchy of study designs that should be used to address each phase.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Evaluation framework for genomic test development. Tests should be evaluated within a given clinical context (i.e. specify disease or health condition, type of patient, proposed test role, desired outcomes, and current practice or clinical alternatives).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Framework for phased evaluation of new genetic tests in relation to proposed roles.

References

    1. Newman-Toker DE, Pronovost PJ. Diagnostic errors–the next frontier for patient safety. JAMA. 2009;301:1060–1062. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.249. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McKibben LJ, Boone DJ, Marchibroda J, Issa AM. A novel Transformation Model for personalized medicine laboratory systems. Personalized Med. 2009;7:87–94. - PubMed
    1. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE. An introduction to assessing genomic screening and diagnostic tests. Nutr Today. 2011;46:162–168. doi: 10.1097/NT.0b013e3182261d7f. - DOI
    1. Burke W, Zimmern R. Edited by United Kingdom Genetic Testing Network. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire UK: Phg Foundation; 2007. Moving beyond ACCE: an expanded framework for genetic test evaluation; pp. 4–28.
    1. Teutsch SM, Bradley LA, Palomaki GE, Haddow JE, Piper M, Calonge N, Dotson WD, Douglas MP, Berg AO. The evaluation of genomic applications in practice and prevention (egapp) initiative: methods of the egapp working group. Genet Med. 2009;11:3–14. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318184137c. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types