Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20823439›Full record

ArticleJAMA2010

Exclusion of genetic information from the medical record: ethical and medical dilemmas.

Robert Klitzman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2015
    Article
  4. The fiduciary relationship model for managing clinical genomic "incidental" findings.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2014
    Article
  5. Ethical, legal, and social implications of incorporating genomic information into electronic health records.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2013
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Ethics and neuropsychiatric genetics: a review of major issues.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2012
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Advising patients about obtaining genomic profiles.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2011
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

1 author.

Robert KlitzmanDivision of Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics, and HIV Center, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA. rlk2@columbia.edu

Funding

Views of Privacy of Genetic InformationR01HG002431 · NHGRI · NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE · PI KLITZMAN, ROBERT L · 2002 to 2005
$1.5M
Center for ELSI Research on Psychiatric Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP20HG005535 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2010 to 2012
$731k
NHGRI NIH HHS P20 HG005535NHGRI NIH HHS P20HG005535-01NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002431NHGRI NIH HHS R01-HG002431-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGenetic TestingPhysiciansGenetic PrivacyHealth Care ReformHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPrejudiceTruth DisclosureUnited States

Identifiers

PMID20823439
PMCPMC3152485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.