The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group
Open accessAbstract
The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative, established by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supports the development and implementation of a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications for clinical and public health practice in the United States. An independent, non-federal EGAPP Working Group (EWG), a multidisciplinary expert panel selects topics, oversees the systematic review of evidence, and makes recommendations based on that evidence. This article describes the EGAPP processes and details the specific methods and approaches used by the EWG.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
Lijmer, J. G. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1061 · Cited by 1,861
Cited by
Current and future perspectives of liquid biopsies in genomics-driven oncology
Heitzer, E., Haque, I. S., Roberts, C. E. S., & Speicher, M. R. (2019) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-018-0071-5 · Cited by 1,557
Liquid biopsy enters the clinic — implementation issues and future challenges
Ignatiadis, M., Sledge, G. W., & Jeffrey, S. S. (2021) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-020-00457-x · Cited by 1,191
Kapur, S., Phillips, A. G., & Insel, T. R. (2012) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/mp.2012.105 · Cited by 980
Merker, J. D., Oxnard, G. R., Compton, C., Diehn, M., Hurley, P., Lazar, A. J., Lindeman, N., Lockwood, C. M., Rai, A. J., Schilsky, R. L., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2017.76.8671 · Cited by 959
Lanman, R. B., Mortimer, S. A., Zill, O. A., Sebisanovic, D., Lopez, R., Blau, S., Collisson, E. A., Divers, S. G., Hoon, D. S. B., Kopetz, E. S., et al. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140712 · Cited by 695
Metadata
- Authors
- Teutsch, S. M., Bradley, L. A., Palomaki, G. E., Haddow, J. E., Piper, M., Calonge, N., Dotson, W. D., Douglas, M. P., & Berg, A. O.
- Venue
- Genetics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-14
- ISSN
- 1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2151726995
- Cited by
- 680
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 51.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/gim.0b013e318184137c
- The paper
- Teutsch, S. M., Bradley, L. A., Palomaki, G. E., Haddow, J. E., Piper, M., Calonge, N., Dotson, W. D., Douglas, M. P., & Berg, A. O. (2009). The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group. Genetics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/gim.0b013e318184137c
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
