Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Since the late 1990 s, there has been an unprecedented growth in the development of new molecular and proteomic assays for clinical decision making. Despite the thousands of tests available, a standardized, well-defined, and coherent evaluation framework for these molecular assays is still lacking. We aim to summarize the publicly available appraisal criteria and to develop a succinct and accessible set of criteria that can provide a roadmap for the appraisal of gene-based laboratory developed tests (LDTs). We conducted a systematic literature review of the available molecular diagnostic framework in PubMed MD and CINAHL and identified 91 articles on existing appraisal criteria. We provided a summary of the historical appraisal system and developed an analysis of these appraisal systems, LDT-SynFRAME, which details the major criteria for evaluating molecular diagnostics in the clinical setting. Our goal with the LDT-SynFRAME system is to promote a well-informed dialog among all the stakeholders responsible for the development, approval, reimbursement, and use of new molecular classifiers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hornberger et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: