OBJECTIVE: The role of genetic testing has expanded with rapidly developing technology and completion of the International Human Genome Project. Development of universally acceptable quality control methods and quality assurance standards trails technology. The principle that high-quality genetic testing is important for public health motivated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to formulate ways for improving quality assurance of human molecular genetics testing. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight panelists were chosen based on expertise in molecular genetics testing and knowledge of quality assurance practices. Representatives of professional organizations, industries, and federal agencies participated in one or more of 3 panel meetings. Consensus recommendations were developed by the 15 panelists in the third meeting. EVIDENCE: Evidence was derived from experts' opinion during 3 panel meetings. Data compiled through laboratory visits and literature review were used as reference information. Need for this project was derived from the Final Report of the Task Force on Genetic Testing, produced by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy in 1997, and the Summary Report of the Subcommittee Meeting on Genetics of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act Advisory Committee in 1997. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Research and development needs were identified using a participatory visioning approach. A modified nominal group process was used to reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Five core consensus recommendations were made: research for developing positive samples for quality assurance purposes, performance evaluation programs supplementing those in existence, establishment and support of laboratory-oriented consortia, establishment of a laboratory-focused database, and support of molecular genetics training programs.
OBJECTIVE: The role of genetic testing has expanded with rapidly developing technology and completion of the International Human Genome Project. Development of universally acceptable quality control methods and quality assurance standards trails technology. The principle that high-quality genetic testing is important for public health motivated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to formulate ways for improving quality assurance of human molecular genetics testing. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight panelists were chosen based on expertise in molecular genetics testing and knowledge of quality assurance practices. Representatives of professional organizations, industries, and federal agencies participated in one or more of 3 panel meetings. Consensus recommendations were developed by the 15 panelists in the third meeting. EVIDENCE: Evidence was derived from experts' opinion during 3 panel meetings. Data compiled through laboratory visits and literature review were used as reference information. Need for this project was derived from the Final Report of the Task Force on Genetic Testing, produced by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy in 1997, and the Summary Report of the Subcommittee Meeting on Genetics of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act Advisory Committee in 1997. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Research and development needs were identified using a participatory visioning approach. A modified nominal group process was used to reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Five core consensus recommendations were made: research for developing positive samples for quality assurance purposes, performance evaluation programs supplementing those in existence, establishment and support of laboratory-oriented consortia, establishment of a laboratory-focused database, and support of molecular genetics training programs.
Authors: Susan H Bernacki; Ana K Stankovic; Laurina O Williams; Jeanne C Beck; James E Herndon; Karen Snow-Bailey; Thomas W Prior; Karla J Matteson; Linda M Wasserman; Eugene C Cole; Timothy T Stenzel Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Sarah Berwouts; Katrina Fanning; Michael A Morris; David E Barton; Elisabeth Dequeker Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Matthew J McGinniss; Rebecca Chen; Victoria M Pratt; Arlene Buller; Franklin Quan; Charles M Strom; Weimin Sun; Beryl Crossley Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Victoria M Pratt; Michele Caggana; Christina Bridges; Arlene M Buller; Lisa DiAntonio; W Edward Highsmith; Leonard M Holtegaard; Kasinathan Muralidharan; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Jack Tarleton; Lorraine Toji; Shannon D Barker; Lisa V Kalman Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Shannon D Barker; Sherri Bale; Jessica Booker; Arlene Buller; Soma Das; Kenneth Friedman; Andrew K Godwin; Wayne W Grody; Edward Highsmith; Jeffery A Kant; Elaine Lyon; Rong Mao; Kristin G Monaghan; Deborah A Payne; Victoria M Pratt; Iris Schrijver; Antony E Shrimpton; Elaine Spector; Milhan Telatar; Lorraine Toji; Karen Weck; Barbara Zehnbauer; Lisa V Kalman Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Lisa Kalman; Jean Amos Wilson; Arlene Buller; John Dixon; Lisa Edelmann; Louis Geller; William Edward Highsmith; Leonard Holtegaard; Ruth Kornreich; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Toby L Payeur; Tina Sellers; Lorraine Toji; Kasinathan Muralidharan Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Michael Jarvis; Ramaswamy K Iyer; Laurina O Williams; Walter W Noll; Kirk Thomas; Milhan Telatar; Wayne W Grody Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Jean Amos Wilson; Victoria M Pratt; Amit Phansalkar; Kasinathan Muralidharan; W Edward Highsmith; Jeanne C Beck; Scott Bridgeman; Ebony M Courtney; Lidia Epp; Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez; Nick L Hjelm; Leonard M Holtegaard; Mohamed A Jama; John P Jakupciak; Monique A Johnson; Paul Labrousse; Elaine Lyon; Thomas W Prior; C Sue Richards; Kristy L Richie; Benjamin B Roa; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Tina Sellers; Stephanie L Sherman; Karen A Siegrist; Lawrence M Silverman; Joanna Wiszniewska; Lisa V Kalman Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2007-12-28 Impact factor: 5.568