ArticleHuman genetics2010
Evaluation of genetic tests for susceptibility to common complex diseases: why, when and how?
Article in Human genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Pooled it
- Perception of genomic newborn screening among peripartum mothers.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Personalized Approaches to Cardiovascular Disease: Insights into FDA-Approved Interventions and Clinical Pharmacogenetics.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
- Understanding polygenic models, their development and the potential application of polygenic scores in healthcare.Journal of medical genetics · 2020Review
- Receptiveness to participation in genetic research: A pilot study comparing views of people with depression, diabetes, or no illness.Journal of psychiatric research · 2017Article
- A Qualitative Study of Anticipated Decision Making around Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing: the Role of Scientifically Concordant and Discordant Expectations.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- The Human Genome Project, and recent advances in personalized genomics.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2015Review
- Genetic testing of children for predisposition to mood disorders: anticipating the clinical issues.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Article
- Interest, rationale, and potential clinical applications of genetic testing for mood disorders: a survey of stakeholders.Journal of affective disorders · 2013Article
- Personalized medicine in cardiovascular diseases.Korean circulation journal · 2012Article
- Personalised medicine in Canada: a survey of adoption and practice in oncology, cardiology and family medicine.BMJ open · 2011Article
- Personal genetics: regulatory framework in Europe from a service provider's perspective.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011Review
- Individual and cumulative effects of GWAS susceptibility loci in lung cancer: associations after sub-phenotyping for COPD.PloS one · 2011Article
- Genetic evidence linking lung cancer and COPD: a new perspective.The application of clinical genetics · 2011Article
- Consent to 'personal' genomics and privacy. Direct-to-consumer genetic tests and population genome research challenge traditional notions of privacy and consent.EMBO reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research into the human genome has generated a wealth of scientific knowledge and increased both public and professional interest in the concept of personalised medicine. Somewhat unexpectedly, in addition to increasing our understanding about the genetic basis for numerous diseases, these new discoveries have also spawned a burgeoning new industry of 'consumer genetic testing'. In this paper, we present the principles learnt though the evaluation of tests for single gene disorders and suggest a comparable framework for the evaluation of genetic tests for susceptibility to common complex diseases. Both physicians and the general public will need to be able to assess the claims made by providers of genetic testing services, and ultimately policy-makers will need to decide if and when such tests should be offered through state funded healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19936793What 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.