ReviewBMC medical ethics2011
Personal genome testing: test characteristics to clarify the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues.
Review in BMC medical ethics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Pooled it
- Testing for thiopurine methyltransferase status for safe and effective thiopurine administration: a systematic review of clinical guidance documents.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2014Pooled it
- Recommendations for return of secondary genomic findings in observational cohort studies.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- RNA-based therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease and related tauopathies: challenges and opportunities.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Review
- Genomic analysis revealing Lynch syndrome in a case of high-grade glioma: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Emerging and evolving values in the changing landscape of genomics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Sharing, reuse, and storage of biosamples among biomedical researchers in Jordan: Practice and concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- The attitude of young people in the city of Yakutsk to DNA-testing.International journal of circumpolar health · 2021Article
- Predictors of empowerment in parents of children with autism and related neurodevelopmental disorders who are undergoing genetic testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2021Article
- Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Value-based genomic screening: exploring genomic screening for chronic diseases using triple value principles.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Clinical application of next-generation sequencing to the practice of neurology.The Lancet. Neurology · 2019Review
- Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.Personalized medicine · 2018Article
- Legislation of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in Europe: a fragmented regulatory landscape.Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
- The Evolution of Public Health Genomics: Exploring Its Past, Present, and Future.Frontiers in public health · 2018Review
- Third party interpretation of raw genetic data: an ethical exploration.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Review
- Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation.BMC medical genomics · 2016Article
- Success rates for consent and collection of prenatal biological specimens in an epidemiologic survey of child health.Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology · 2016Article
- Potential Uses and Inherent Challenges of Using Genome-Scale Sequencing to Augment Current Newborn Screening.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2015Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs genetics technology proceeds, practices of genetic testing have become more heterogeneous: many different types of tests are finding their way to the public in different settings and for a variety of purposes. This diversification is relevant to the discourse on ethical, legal and societal issues (ELSI) surrounding genetic testing, which must evolve to encompass these differences. One important development is the rise of personal genome testing on the basis of genetic profiling: the testing of multiple genetic variants simultaneously for the prediction of common multifactorial diseases. Currently, an increasing number of companies are offering personal genome tests directly to consumers and are spurring ELSI-discussions, which stand in need of clarification. This paper presents a systematic approach to the ELSI-evaluation of personal genome testing for multifactorial diseases along the lines of its test characteristics. DISCUSSION: This paper addresses four test characteristics of personal genome testing: its being a non-targeted type of testing, its high analytical validity, low clinical validity and problematic clinical utility. These characteristics raise their own specific ELSI, for example: non-targeted genetic profiling poses serious problems for information provision and informed consent. Questions about the quantity and quality of the necessary information, as well as about moral responsibilities with regard to the provision of information are therefore becoming central themes within ELSI-discussions of personal genome testing. Further, the current low level of clinical validity of genetic profiles raises questions concerning societal risks and regulatory requirements, whereas simultaneously it causes traditional ELSI-issues of clinical genetics, such as psychological and health risks, discrimination, and stigmatization, to lose part of their relevance. Also, classic notions of clinical utility are challenged by the newer notion of 'personal utility.' SUMMARY: Consideration of test characteristics is essential to any valuable discourse on the ELSI of personal genome testing for multifactorial diseases. Four key characteristics of the test - targeted/non-targeted testing, analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility - together determine the applicability and the relevance of ELSI to specific tests. The paper identifies and discusses four areas of interest for the ELSI-debate on personal genome testing: informational problems, risks, regulatory issues, and the notion of personal utility.
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.