ArticleJournal of community genetics2012
The wide variation of definitions of genetic testing in international recommendations, guidelines and reports.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the Diverse and Inclusive Future of Parkinson's Disease Genetics and Its Widespread Impact.Genes · 2021Review
- Genomic research in Zambia: confronting the ethics, policy and regulatory frontiers in the 21st Century.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- ClinLabGeneticist: a tool for clinical management of genetic variants from whole exome sequencing in clinical genetic laboratories.Genome medicine · 2015Article
- The Use of Non-Variant Sites to Improve the Clinical Assessment of Whole-Genome Sequence Data.PloS one · 2015Article
- Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014Article
- Issues concerning the evaluation and regulation of predictive genetic testing.Journal of community genetics · 2014Article
- Molecular genetic testing and the future of clinical genomics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2013Review
- How the electronic health record will change the future of health care.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2012Article
- Definitions of genetic testing in European legal documents.Journal of community genetics · 2012Article
- Editorial: genetics and democracy.Journal of community genetics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In spite of being very commonly used, the term genetic testing is debatable and used with several meanings. The diversity of existing definitions is confusing for scientists, clinicians and other professionals, health authorities, legislators and regulating agencies and the civil society in general, particularly when genetic testing is the object of guidelines or legal documents. This work compares definitions of genetic testing found in recommendations, guidelines and reports from international institutions, policy makers and professional organizations, but also in documents from other stakeholders in the field, as the pharmaceutical industry, insurers, ethics bodies, patient organizations or human-rights associations. A systematic review of these documents confirmed the extreme variability existing in the concepts and the ambiguous or equivocal use of the term. Some definitions (narrower) focus on methodologies or the material analysed, while others (broader) are information- or context-based. Its scope may range from being synonymous of just DNA analysis, to any test that yields genetic data. Genetic testing and genetic information, which may be derived from a range of medical exams or even family history, are often used interchangeably. Genetic testing and genetic screening are sometimes confused. Human molecular genetics (a discipline) is not always distinguished from molecular biology (a tool). Professional background, geographical context and purpose of the organizations may influence scope and usage. A common consensus definition does not exist. Nevertheless, a clear set of precise definitions may help creating a common language among geneticists and other health professionals. Moreover, a clear context-dependent, operative definition should always be given.
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.