Literature DB >> 22955111

Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update.

David L Veenstra1, Margaret Piper, James E Haddow, Stephen G Pauker, Roger Klein, Carolyn Sue Richards, Sean R Tunis, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Michael Marrone, Jennifer S Lin, Alfred O Berg, Ned Calonge.   

Abstract

To provide an update on recent revisions to Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) methods designed to improve efficiency, and an assessment of the implications of whole genome sequencing for evidence-based recommendation development. Improvements to the EGAPP approach include automated searches for horizon scanning, a quantitative ranking process for topic prioritization, and the development of a staged evidence review and evaluation process. The staged process entails (i) triaging tests with minimal evidence of clinical validity, (ii) using and updating existing reviews, (iii) evaluating clinical validity prior to analytic validity or clinical utility, (iv) using decision modeling to assess potential clinical utility when direct evidence is not available. EGAPP experience to date suggests the following approaches will be critical for the development of evidence based recommendations in the whole genome sequencing era: (i) use of triage approaches and frameworks to improve efficiency, (ii) development of evidence thresholds that consider the value of further research, (iii) incorporation of patient preferences, and (iv) engagement of diverse stakeholders. The rapid advances in genomics present a significant challenge to traditional evidence based medicine, but also an opportunity for innovative approaches to recommendation development.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22955111      PMCID: PMC3932295          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  26 in total

1.  The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution.

Authors:  Gordon Guyatt; Elie A Akl; Jack Hirsh; Clive Kearon; Mark Crowther; David Gutterman; Sandra Zelman Lewis; Ian Nathanson; Roman Jaeschke; Holger Schünemann
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.

Authors:  A D Oxman; G H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences.

Authors:  Murray Krahn; Gary Naglie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-07-23       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; A Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Jan Brozek; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Regina Kunz; Jonathan Craig; Victor M Montori; Patrick Bossuyt; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-17

Review 5.  Systematic review: Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor treatment effect modification by KRAS mutations in advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Teruhiko Terasawa; Peter J Castaldi; Thomas A Trikalinos
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Stakeholder perspectives on a risk-benefit framework for genetic testing.

Authors:  Joshua A Roth; Louis P Garrison; Wylie Burke; Scott D Ramsey; Rick Carlson; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 7.  Use of genomic profiling to assess risk for cardiovascular disease and identify individualized prevention strategies--a targeted evidence-based review.

Authors:  Glenn E Palomaki; Stephanie Melillo; Louis Neveux; Michael P Douglas; W David Dotson; A Cecile J W Janssens; Elizabeth A Balkite; Linda A Bradley
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

Authors:  Steven M Teutsch; Linda A Bradley; Glenn E Palomaki; James E Haddow; Margaret Piper; Ned Calonge; W David Dotson; Michael P Douglas; Alfred O Berg
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  A formal risk-benefit framework for genomic tests: facilitating the appropriate translation of genomics into clinical practice.

Authors:  David L Veenstra; Joshua A Roth; Louis P Garrison; Scott D Ramsey; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  26 in total

1.  'Someday it will be the norm': physician perspectives on the utility of genome sequencing for patient care in the MedSeq Project.

Authors:  Jason L Vassy; Kurt D Christensen; Melody J Slashinski; Denise M Lautenbach; Sridharan Raghavan; Jill Oliver Robinson; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Lindsay Zausmer Feuerman; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Michael F Murray; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 2.  The Routine Clinical use of Pharmacogenetic Tests: What it Will Require?

Authors:  Mafalda M Dias; Michael J Sorich; Andrew Rowland; Michael D Wiese; Ross A McKinnon
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 3.  Next generation sequencing and the future of genetic diagnosis.

Authors:  Katja Lohmann; Christine Klein
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 7.620

4.  Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study.

Authors:  J N Kohler; E Turbitt; K L Lewis; B S Wilfond; L Jamal; H L Peay; L G Biesecker; B B Biesecker
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 4.438

5.  Overcoming the reimbursement barriers for clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Patricia A Deverka; David Kaufman; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Was it worth it? Patients' perspectives on the perceived value of genomic-based individualized medicine.

Authors:  Colin Me Halverson; Kristin E Clift; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-02-09

7.  Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: coverage and reimbursement challenges.

Authors:  Patricia A Deverka; Jennifer C Dreyfus
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Challenges of coverage policy development for next-generation tumor sequencing panels: experts and payers weigh in.

Authors:  Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; R Kate Kelley; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 11.908

Review 9.  Disease-targeted sequencing: a cornerstone in the clinic.

Authors:  Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 10.  Growing up in the genomic era: implications of whole-genome sequencing for children, families, and pediatric practice.

Authors:  Christopher H Wade; Beth A Tarini; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.