ArticleGenome medicine2009
Genomic medicine: considerations for health professionals and the public.
Article in Genome medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Racial and ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing in the US: Systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019Pooled it
- Making a case for genomics in chiropractic education.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2022Article
- Making community voices heard in a research-health service alliance, the evolving role of the Community Advisory Group: a case study from the members' perspective.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Adolescent perceptions of pharmacogenetic testing.Pharmacogenomics · 2021Article
- Community engagement in US biobanking: multiplicity of meaning and method.Public health genomics · 2014Article
- After the revolution? Ethical and social challenges in 'personalized genomic medicine'Personalized medicine · 2012Article
- Biomarkers: symptoms, survivorship, and quality of life.Seminars in oncology nursing · 2012Review
- Modelling decisions to undergo genetic testing for susceptibility to common health conditions: an ancillary study of the Multiplex Initiative.Psychology & health · 2012Article
- "Who owns your poop?": insights regarding the intersection of human microbiome research and the ELSI aspects of biobanking and related studies.BMC medical genomics · 2011Article
- Biobanks: importance, implications and opportunities for genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2010Review
- The need for medical education reform: genomics and the changing nature of health information.Genome medicine · 2010Article
- Predictive and prognostic molecular markers for cancer medicine.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2010Article
- Education and personalized genomics: deciphering the public's genetic health report.Personalized medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in human genomics are ushering in a new era of predictive, preventative and personalized approaches to medicine. However, as the integration of genomic medicine progresses, the health community has a responsibility to communicate to the public the risks and challenges of genetic information. A possible knowledge transfer framework is outlined as a means to bridge the practical uses of genetics within various ethical, social and economic contexts. Tools and resources are needed to help clinicians understand genetic risks and help them inform the public appropriately and effectively.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.