Dataset Information

Quality standards for DNA sequence variation databases to improve clinical management under development in Australia.

ABSTRACT: Despite the routine nature of comparing sequence variations identified during clinical testing to database records, few databases meet quality requirements for clinical diagnostics. To address this issue, The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) in collaboration with the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA), and the Human Variome Project (HVP) is developing standards for DNA sequence variation databases intended for use in the Australian clinical environment. The outputs of this project will be promoted to other health systems and accreditation bodies by the Human Variome Project to support the development of similar frameworks in other jurisdictions.

SUBMITTER: Bennetts B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4888016 | biostudies-other | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality standards for DNA sequence variation databases to improve clinical management under development in Australia.

Bennetts B B Caramins M M Hsu A A Lau C C Mead S S Meldrum C C Smith T D TD Suthers G G Taylor G R GR Cotton R G H RG Tyrrell V V

Applied & translational genomics 20140710 3

Despite the routine nature of comparing sequence variations identified during clinical testing to database records, few databases meet quality requirements for clinical diagnostics. To address this issue, The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) in collaboration with the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA), and the Human Variome Project (HVP) is developing standards for DNA sequence variation databases intended for use in the Australian clinical environment. The outputs o ...[more]

PMID: 27294016

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bioinformatics sequence databases such as Genbank or UniProt contain hundreds of millions of records of genomic data. These records are derived from direct submissions from individual laboratories, as well as from bulk submissions from large-scale sequencing centres; their diversity and scale means that they suffer from a range of data quality issues including errors, discrepancies, redundancies, ambiguities, incompleteness and inconsistencies with the published literature. In this work, we seek to investigate and analyze the data quality of sequence databases from the perspective of a curator, who must detect anomalous and suspicious records. Specifically, we emphasize the detection of inconsistent records with respect to the literature. Focusing on GenBank, we propose a set of 24 quality indicators, which are based on treating a record as a query into the published literature, and then use query quality predictors. We then carry out an analysis that shows that the proposed quality indicators and the quality of the records have a mutual relationship, in which one depends on the other. We propose to represent record-literature consistency as a vector of these quality indicators. By reducing the dimensionality of this representation for visualization purposes using principal component analysis, we show that records which have been reported as inconsistent with the literature fall roughly in the same area, and therefore share similar characteristics. By manually analyzing records not previously known to be erroneous that fall in the same area than records know to be inconsistent, we show that one record out of four is inconsistent with respect to the literature. This high density of inconsistent record opens the way towards the development of automatic methods for the detection of faulty records. We conclude that literature inconsistency is a meaningful strategy for identifying suspicious records. Database URL:https://github.com/rbouadjenek/DQBioinformatics.

Project description:The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand how and why participation in quality circles (QCs) improves general practitioners' (GPs) psychological well-being and the quality of their clinical practice. To provide evidence-informed and practical guidance to maintain QCs at local and policy levels.DesignA theory-driven mixed method.SettingPrimary healthcare.MethodWe collected data in four stages to develop and refine the programme theory of QCs: (1) coinquiry with Swiss and European expert stakeholders to develop a preliminary programme theory; (2) realist review with systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINHAL (1980-2020) to inform the preliminary programme theory; (3) programme refinement through interviews with participants, facilitators, tutors and managers of QCs and (4) consolidation of theory through interviews with QC experts across Europe and examining existing theories.Sources of dataThe coinquiry comprised 4 interviews and 3 focus groups with 50 European experts. From the literature search, we included 108 papers to develop the literature-based programme theory. In stage 3, we used data from 40 participants gathered in 6 interviews and 2 focus groups to refine the programme theory. In stage 4, five interviewees from different healthcare systems consolidated our programme theory.ResultRequirements for successful QCs are governmental trust in GPs' abilities to deliver quality improvement, training, access to educational material and performance data, protected time and financial resources. Group dynamics strongly influence success; facilitators should ensure participants exchange knowledge and generate new concepts in a safe environment. Peer interaction promotes professional development and psychological well-being. With repetition, participants gain confidence to put their new concepts into practice.ConclusionWith expert facilitation, clinical review and practice opportunities, QCs can improve the quality of standard practice, enhance professional development and increase psychological well-being in the context of adequate professional and administrative support.Prospero registration numberCRD42013004826.

Dataset Information

Quality standards for DNA sequence variation databases to improve clinical management under development in Australia.

Publications

Quality standards for DNA sequence variation databases to improve clinical management under development in Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets