Frequently Asked Questions

This website is archived for historical purposes and is no longer being maintained or updated.

EGAPP Initiative

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative was established in October 2004 by the Office of Public Health Genomics (OPHG) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The goal of EGAPP is to develop a systematic, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other applications of genomic technology that are rapidly moving from research to use in clinical practice. A key objective of this process is to provide objective, timely, and credible information that is clearly linked to the scientific evidence on specific applications of genetic and genomic tests.

The primary focus of EGAPP activities is an independent, nonfederal expert panel, the EGAPP Working Group. Other components of the EGAPP initiative include a federal interagency, the CDC staff and consultants, and an EGAPP initiative evaluation team.

Links for more information

EGAPP Working Group

The EGAPP Working Group is an independent panel established in April 2005 to lead the development of a process for evidence-based assessment that is specifically focused on genetic tests and other applications of genomic technology. The multidisciplinary panel was orginally composed of 13 experts from areas such as evidence-based review, clinical practice, public health, laboratory practice, genomics, epidemiology, economics, ethics, policy, and health technology assessment. Key objectives of the panel are to:

  • develop a transparent, publicly accountable evaluation process;
  • minimize conflicts of interest in the evaluation process;
  • optimize existing methods to address the evidence review challenges presented by complex and rapidly emerging genomic applications; and
  • provide clear linkage between the scientific evidence developed in commissioned evidence reports and the Working Group recommendation statement subsequently developed, peer reviewed, and published.

EGAPP Working Group

Increasingly, the health care provider and payer communities consider evidence review to be the preferred method for evaluating a new test, technology, or intervention. Also referred to as “evidence-based” or “systematic,” such reviews involve:

  • systematic identification and objective review of relevant published literature on a specifically defined topic in order to answer a series of pre-determined key questions;
  • rigorous review of the quality of the evidence; and
  • analysis and synthesis of the evidence.

Most commonly, “evidence” is defined as peer-reviewed publications of original data or systematic review or meta-analysis of such studies. Editorials and expert opinion pieces are not included. In some cases, reviews allow for inclusion of some unpublished literature, and for consideration on a case-by-case basis of other sources of information.

The product of an evidence review is an evidence report that provides detailed documentation on the test, the rationale and clinical scenario for testing, key questions addressed in the review, methods used for review and analysis, and the conclusions and identified gaps in knowledge.

EGAPP Interactions with Genetic Testing Stakeholders

  • EGAPP encourages individuals or representatives of stakeholder groups to comment on its processes or products via the EGAPP Working Group web site.
  • EGAPP encourages submission of suggestions for specific applications of genetic tests that should have priority for review (and why).
  • The EGAPP initiative and Working Group recruit representatives of stakeholder groups to serve as expert consultants or reviewers for evidence reports or as peer reviewers of recommendation statements.
  • Individuals ;and organizations& have opportunities to respond to periodic solicitations for nominees to participate as members of the EGAPP Working Group.
  • The EGAPP initiative is documenting and evaluating Working Group processes and products; evaluation will include web-based surveys in a range of stakeholder groups.

More information

For more information, please see

TOP