Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21270636›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2011

Changes to perceptions of the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing after APOE genotyping for Alzheimer disease risk.

Kurt D Christensen, J Scott Roberts, Wendy R Uhlmann, Robert C Green

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. A randomized noninferiority trial of condensed protocols for genetic risk disclosure of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2015
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kurt D ChristensenDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029, USA. kdchrist@umich.edu
J Scott Roberts
Wendy R Uhlmann
Robert C Green
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USBoston University · USMichigan Department of Health and Human Services · US

Funding

Neuropathology CoreP30AG013846 · NIA · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI KOWALL, NEIL W. · 1996 to 2020
$29.1M
YOGA INDUCED CHANGES IN BRAIN GABA LEVELSM01RR000533 · NCRR · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI HOLICK, MICHAEL F. · 1985 to 2008
$19.4M
UVDM01RR010284 · NCRR · HOWARD UNIVERSITY · PI TAYLOR, ROBERT E. · 1996 to 2010
$17.4M
GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASER01AG009029 · NIA · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI FARRER, LINDSAY A. · 1991 to 2007
$14.7M
Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer's Disease (REVEAL IV)R01HG002213 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C. · 1999 to 2012
$7.6M
Impact of Direct to Consumer Genetic TestingR01HG005092 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C., ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2010 to 2012
$1.1M
Characterizing Communicating Genetic Risk Alzheimer'sK24AG027841 · NIA · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C. · 2006 to 2010
$914k
NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR000533NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR010284NCRR NIH HHS RR00533NHGRI NIH HHS HG005092NHGRI NIH HHS HG02213NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002213NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG005092NIA NIH HHS AG027841NIA NIH HHS AG09029NIA NIH HHS AG13846NIA NIH HHS K24 AG027841NIA NIH HHS P30 AG013846NIA NIH HHS R01 AG009029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePerceptions about the pros and cons of genetic susceptibility testing are among the best predictors of test utilization. How actual testing changes such perceptions has yet to be examined.

methodsIn a clinical trial, first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease received genetic risk assessments for Alzheimer disease including APOE disclosure. Participants rated 11 possible benefits associated with genetic testing (pros) and 10 risks or limitations (cons) before genetic risk disclosure and again 12 months afterward.

resultsPros were rated higher than cons at baseline (3.53 vs. 1.83, P < 0.001) and at 12 months after risk disclosure (3.33 vs. 1.88, P < 0.001). Ratings of pros decreased during the 12-month period (3.33 vs. 3.53, P < 0.001). Ratings of cons did not change (1.88 vs. 1.83, P = 0.199) except for a three-item discrimination subscale which increased (2.07 vs. 1.92, P = 0.012). Among specific pros and cons, three items related to prevention and treatment changed the most.

conclusionThe process of APOE genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease sensitizes some to its limitations and the risks of discrimination; however, 1-year after disclosure, test recipients still consider the pros to strongly outweigh the cons.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseApolipoproteins EFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMaleMiddle AgedMolecular TypingPerceptionRisk AssessmentApolipoproteins E

Identifiers

PMID21270636
PMCPMC3170997
OpenAlexW2001831870

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.