Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11431707›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2001

Estimating the efficacy and efficiency of cascade genetic screening.

M Krawczak, D N Cooper, J Schmidtke

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. An Examination of the Ethical and Legal Limits in Implementing "Traceback Testing" for Deceased Patients.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: patient recommendations for improved risk communication.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M KrawczakInstitute of Medical Genetics and Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF14 4XN, United Kingdom. krawczak@cardiff.ac.uk
D N Cooper
J Schmidtke
University of Wales · GBMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening for genetic variants that predispose individuals or their offspring to disease may be performed at the general population level or may instead be targeted at the relatives of previously identified carriers. The latter strategy has come to be known as "cascade genetic screening." Since the carrier risk of close relatives of known carriers is generally higher than the population risk, cascade screening is more efficient than population screening, in the sense that fewer individuals have to be genotyped per detected carrier. The efficacy of cascade screening, as measured by the overall proportion of carriers detected in a given population, is, however, lower than that of population-wide screening, and the respective inclusion rates vary according to the population frequency and mode of inheritance of the predisposing variants. For dominant mutations, we have developed equations that allow the inclusion rates of cascade screening to be calculated in an iterative fashion, depending upon screening depth and penetrance. For recessive mutations, we derived only equations for the screening of siblings and the children of patients. Owing to their mathematical complexity, it was necessary to study more extended screening strategies by simulation. Cascade screening turned out to result in low inclusion rates (<1%) when aimed at the identification of heterozygous carriers of rare recessive variants. Considerably higher rates are achievable, however, when screening is performed to detect covert homozygotes for frequent recessive mutations with reduced penetrance. This situation is exemplified by hereditary hemochromatosis, for which up to 40% of at-risk individuals may be identifiable through screening of first- to third-degree relatives of overt carriers (i.e., patients); the efficiency of this screening strategy was found to be approximately 50 times higher than that of population-wide screening. For dominant mutations, inclusion rates of cascade screening were estimated to be higher than for recessive variants. Thus, some 80% of all carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation would be detected if screening were to be targeted specifically at first- to third-degree relatives of patients with venous thrombosis. The relative cost efficiency of cascade as compared with population-wide screening (i.e., the overall savings in the extra managerial cost of the condition) is also likely to be higher for dominant than for recessive mutations. This notwithstanding, once screening has become cost-effective at the population level, it can be expected that cascade screening would only transiently represent an economically viable option.

Indexed as

HeterozygoteComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisCystic FibrosisFactor VGenes, DominantGenes, LethalGenes, RecessiveGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHemochromatosisHomozygoteHumansMutationNuclear FamilyPedigreeFactor Vfactor V Leiden

Identifiers

PMID11431707
PMCPMC1235308
OpenAlexW2083344240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.