ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2009
'Over-the-counter' genetic testing: what does it really mean for primary care?
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Shift to Over-the-Counter Diagnostic Testing After RADx: Clinical, Regulatory, and Societal Implications.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Obesity and Nutrigenetics Testing: New Insights.Nutrients · 2024Review
- The implementation of pharmacogenomics into UK general practice: a qualitative study exploring barriers, challenges and opportunities.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Article
- Introducing genetic testing for cardiovascular disease in primary care: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- "Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer.Journal of genetic counseling · 2013Article
- Effects of disclosing hypothetical genetic test results for salt sensitivity on salt restriction behavior.International journal of general medicine · 2013Article
- Genetic advances in medicine: has the promise been fulfilled in general practice?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012Article
- The prospect of genome-guided preventive medicine: a need and opportunity for genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The publication of More Genes Direct by the Human Genetics Commission is a timely reminder of the potential impact that 'over-the-counter' genetic testing (that is, a direct genetic test without the need for a medical referral) may have on the NHS. This article considers the relevance of current genetic research on complex common diseases and how this might translate into risk estimates for developing conditions such as dementia, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. The implications for primary care include the need to understand the current limitations of genetic testing and its commercial application over the counter, and the importance of continuing to make risk assessments using family history. The authors recommend caution in the premature introduction of over-the-counter testing without a sound evidence base.
Indexed as
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.