Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21461037›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2011

The sense and nonsense of direct-to-consumer genetic testing for cardiovascular disease.

A C J W Janssens, A A M Wilde, I M van Langen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The NHJ 2012 in retrospect: which articles are cited most?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2012
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Direct-to-consumer personalized genomic testing.Human molecular genetics · 2011
    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

3 authors.

A C J W Janssens
A A M Wilde
I M van Langen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expectations are high that increasing knowledge of the genetic basis of cardiovascular disease will eventually lead to personalised medicine-to preventive and therapeutic interventions that are targeted to at-risk individuals on the basis of their genetic profiles. Most cardiovascular diseases are caused by a complex interplay of many genetic variants interacting with many non-genetic risk factors such as diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption. Since several years, genetic susceptibility testing for cardiovascular diseases is being offered via the internet directly to consumers. We discuss five reasons why these tests are not useful, namely: (1) the predictive ability is still limited; (2) the risk models used by the companies are based on assumptions that have not been verified; (3) the predicted risks keep changing when new variants are discovered and added to the test; (4) the tests do not consider non-genetic factors in the prediction of cardiovascular disease risk; and (5) the test results will not change recommendations of preventive interventions. Predictive genetic testing for multifactorial forms of cardiovascular disease clearly lacks benefits for the public. Prevention of disease should therefore remain focused on family history and on non-genetic risk factors as diet and physical activity that can have the strongest impact on disease risk, regardless of genetic susceptibility.

Identifiers

PMID21461037
PMCPMC3040348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.