ReviewJournal of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics2008
Public health genomics and genetic test evaluation: the challenge of conducting behavioural research on the utility of lifestyle-genetic tests.
Review in Journal of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of genetic notification on smoking cessation: systematic review and pooled-analysis.PloS one · 2012Pooled it
- Technical Performance of a 430-Gene Preventative Genomics Assay to Identify Multiple Variant Types Associated with Adult-Onset Monogenic Conditions, Susceptibility Loci, and Pharmacogenetic Insights.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- The 'thousand-dollar genome': an ethical exploration.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2013Article
- Genetic counseling as a tool for type 2 diabetes prevention: a genetic counseling framework for common polygenetic disorders.Journal of genetic counseling · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human genetics research is increasingly concerned with multifactorial conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which are influenced not only by genetic but also lifestyle factors such as diet and smoking. Although the results of 'lifestyle-genetic' tests using this information could conceivably motivate lifestyle changes in the future, companies are already selling such tests and related lifestyle advice commercially. Some academics and lobby groups have condemned the companies for selling these tests in advance of scientific support. Others are concerned that the tests may not motivate lifestyle improvements, instead causing distress in people receiving adverse test results and complacency in those receiving reassuring results. There is currently no regulatory oversight of genetic test utility, despite consensus in the Public Health Genomics community that clinical utility (including psychological and behavioural impact) of all emerging genetic tests should be evaluated before being introduced for individual use. Clearly, empirical data in this area is much needed, to inform understanding of the potential utility of these tests, and of whether stricter regulation of commercial exploitation is needed. In this article, we review the current situation regarding lifestyle-genetic tests, and discuss the challenges inherent in conducting this kind of behavioural research in the genomics era.
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.