ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2012
Giving and withholding of information following genomic screening: challenges identified in a study of primary care physicians in Estonia.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Building capacity for genomics in primary care: a scoping review of practitioner attitudes, education needs, and enablers.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review.Family medicine and community health · 2022Pooled it
- Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Advances in Genomic Discovery and Implications for Personalized Prevention and Medicine: Estonia as Example.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- An epidemiological perspective of personalized medicine: the Estonian experience.Journal of internal 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
The use of predictive genomic information to improve medical care remains a contentious topic. However, it is generally agreed that the potential of genomics to improve medicine relies on medical care providers' ability to effectively communicate and put in context the meaning of test results. As the amount of information available increasingly outstrips providers' ability to offer qualified judgments on what the information means, consumers inevitably will be faced with test results of uncertain significance, as well as difficult questions about what they do or do not wish to know. Results of this survey of 64 primary care doctors in Estonia suggests that it may be inherently difficult for physicians to withhold genetic information obtained by genome scans or sequencing, even when they believe that having that information is not in the best interests of their patient. The descriptive data suggest introducing genomic medicine through primary care physicians, as proposed by the Estonian Genome Center of the University of Tartu, will require further genetics education as well as a carefully developed set of guidelines for determining where, when and how to use test results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22160497What 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.