Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22368105›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2012

The wide variation of definitions of genetic testing in international recommendations, guidelines and reports.

Jorge Sequeiros, Milena Paneque, Bárbara Guimarães, Elina Rantanen, Poupak Javaher, Irma Nippert, Jörg Schmidtke, Helena Kääriäainen, Ulf Kristoffersson, Jean-Jacques Cassiman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. How the electronic health record will change the future of health care.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2012
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Editorial: genetics and democracy.Journal of community genetics · 2012
    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

10 authors.

Jorge SequeirosIBMC-Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, University Porto, Porto, Portugal, jorge.sequeiros@ibmc.up.pt.
Milena Paneque
Bárbara Guimarães
Elina Rantanen
Poupak Javaher
Irma Nippert
Jörg Schmidtke
Helena Kääriäainen
Ulf Kristoffersson
Jean-Jacques Cassiman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID22368105
PMCPMC3312940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.