PubMed · 7361090
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J P Habicht. 1980-03-28. Assessing diagnostic technologies.. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7361090
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: The Rare Disease Diagnostic Support Program in the Republic of Korea aims to improve early diagnosis and diagnostic yield for patients with rare diseases, particularly for those residing in non-metropolitan areas, by providing whole genome sequencing (WGS) services through regional medical institutions. This study evaluated the performance of the program, focusing on its clinical utility, including early diagnosis and treatment linkage, and its policy impact related to patient benefits. METHODS: From August 2024, WGS was performed on 410 patients with suspected rare diseases at 23 institutions outside the metropolitan area. A one-stop diagnostic pathway was established to perform sample collection, test referral, report delivery, and genetic counseling within a single clinical flow based on the patient’s location of residence. Sequencing was performed by external laboratories. RESULTS: Among the 410 patients, pathogenic variants were identified in 129 (31.5%), with a turnaround time of 28 days. Of those diagnosed, 78.2% received treatment benefits via national programs such as co-payment exemption and medical expense support programs. Approximately 30% of the patients were eligible for therapeutic intervention, particularly medication or dietary therapy. Family genetic testing of three members identified potential carriers or high-risk groups in 28 households (65.1%). Consent for secondary findings was 99.0%, with clinically significant variants found in 3.9% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The program demonstrated clinical value by improving diagnostic accessibility, reducing regional disparities, facilitating timely treatment, and supporting preventive care through family risk identification. These findings support the need for sustainable expansion of genome-based diagnostic services in the national health policy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Imprecise usage of the terms "sensitivity" and "specificity" produces confusion in the diagnostic use of sophisticated laboratory test results. "Analytical sensitivity" represents the smallest amount of substance in a sample that can accurately be measured by an assay. "Analytical specificity" refers to the ability of an assay to measure on particular organism or substance, rather than others, in a sample. An assay's analytical sensitivity and analytical specificity are distinct from that assay's clinical diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity. "Diagnostic sensitivity" is the percentage of persons who have a given disorder who are identified by the assay as positive for the disorder. High analytical sensitivity does not guarantee acceptable diagnostic sensitivity. "Diagnostic specificity" is the percentage of persons who do not have a given condition who are identified by the assay as negative for the condition. False-positive reactions occur because of sample contamination and diminish the diagnostic specificity of the assay. The terms "sensitivity" and "specificity" should be used with the requisite adjectives because the "diagnostic" and the "analytical" meanings of these terms are very different.