Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17443529›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer.

S Sivell, R Iredale, J Gray, B Coles

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Attitudes Toward Genetic Testing for Celiac Disease.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Controversies in communication of genetic screening results for cancer: a report from the American Society of Preventive Oncology's Screening Special Interest Group (ASPO's 33rd Annual Meeting, March 8 to 10, 2009, Tampa, Florida).Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2010
    Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S Sivell
R Iredale
J Gray
B Coles
University of Wales · GBCardiff University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe recognition of an inherited component to breast cancer has led to an increase in demand for information, reassurance, and genetic testing, resulting in the creation of genetics clinics for familial cancer. The first step for patients referred to a cancer genetic clinic is a risk assessment.

objectivesTo evaluate the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment services on patients at risk of familial breast cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The specialised register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, DARE, ASSIA, Web of Science, SIGLE and LILACS. The searches covered the period 1985 to February 2005. We also hand-searched relevant journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials looking at interventions for cancer genetic risk assessment delivery for familial breast cancer were considered for inclusion. Trials assessed outcomes such as understanding of risk, satisfaction and psychological well-being. Studies were excluded if they concerned cancers other than breast cancer or if participants were not at risk of breast cancer. Trials concerning the provision of information or education were also excluded as it was intended to review these separately. Participants could be individuals of any age or gender, with or without a known BRCA mutation, but without a previous history of breast cancer or any other serious illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from investigators as necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of both the interventions and outcomes, data were analysed descriptively. MAIN

resultsFifty-eight papers were identified as relevant to the review, 54 of these were subsequently excluded. The three included trials (pertaining to five papers), provide data on 1251 participants and assessed the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment on outcomes including perceived risk, and psychological distress. This review suggests that cancer genetic risk assessment services help to reduce distress, improve the accuracy of the perceived risk of, and increase knowledge about, breast cancer and genetics. The health professional delivering the risk assessment does not appear to have a significant impact on these outcomes. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review found favourable outcomes for patients' risk assessment for familial breast cancer. However, there were too few papers to make any significant conclusions about how best to deliver cancer genetic risk assessment services. Further research is needed assessing the best means of delivering cancer risk assessment, by different health professionals, in different ways and in alternative locations.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFamily HealthFemaleGenetic CounselingHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID17443529
OpenAlexW4236433905

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.