Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19554476›Full record

ArticleFamilial cancer2010

Childhood genetic testing for familial cancer: should adoption make a difference?

Ainsley J Newson, Samantha J Leonard

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Familial cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Ethics in genetic counselling.Journal of community genetics · 2019
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ainsley J NewsonCentre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, 3rd Floor, Hampton House, Cotham Hill, Bristol, BS6 6AU, UK. ainsley.newson@bristol.ac.uk
Samantha J Leonard
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professional guidelines and practice in clinical genetics generally counsel against predictive genetic testing in childhood. A genetic test should not be performed in a child who is too young to choose it for himself unless that test is diagnostic, will lead to an intervention to prevent illness, or enable screening. It is therefore generally considered unacceptable to test young children for adult-onset cancer syndromes. However, these guidelines are challenged when clinical genetics services receive requests from adoption agencies or pre-adoptive parents for predictive genetic tests in children being placed for adoption. Testing will foreclose a pre-adoptive child's future autonomous right to choose, yet those commissioning these tests argue that adoption should form a special case. In this paper, we argue that predictive genetic testing as part of a pre-adoptive 'work-up' should be discouraged when the same test would not generally be carried out in a child who is not being adopted. We present an argument based on a principle of consistency and question those claims that privilege the adoptive process, whilst acknowledging the array of uncertainties faced by pre-adoptive parents. We suggest that if pre-adoptive testing is considered, this should only take place after prospective adoptive parents have had the opportunity to meet the clinical genetics team and fully understand the implications of the testing process.

Indexed as

Self ConceptAdoptionAdultChildChild DevelopmentChoice BehaviorFamily HealthGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic PrivacyGenetic TestingHumansInfant, NewbornMother-Child RelationsNeoplasmsParents

Identifiers

PMID19554476
OpenAlexW2079814022

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.