ArticleJournal of community genetics2010
Points to consider in assessing and appraising predictive genetic tests.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 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
- Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Quality of life drives patients' preferences for secondary findings from genomic sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Article
- Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Points to consider for prioritizing clinical genetic testing services: a European consensus process oriented at accountability for reasonableness.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015Article
- Concepts of 'personalization' in personalized medicine: implications for economic evaluation.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Article
- A Quantitative Assessment of Factors Affecting the Technological Development and Adoption of Companion Diagnostics.Frontiers in genetics · 2015Article
- Criteria for fairly allocating scarce health-care resources to genetic tests: which matter most?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014Article
- Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: a pilot study comparing best-worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2013Article
- Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies.Pharmacogenomics · 2013Review
- Primary care patients' views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a longitudinal study.Journal of community genetics · 2013Article
- Genetic data and electronic health records: a discussion of ethical, logistical and technological considerations.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of predictive genetic tests is expanding rapidly. Given limited health care budgets and few national coverage decisions specifically for genetic tests, evidence of benefits and harms is a key requirement in decision making; however, assessing the benefits and harms of genetic tests raises a number of challenging issues. Frequently, evidence of medical benefits and harms is limited due to practical and ethical limitations of conducting meaningful clinical trials. Also, clinical endpoints frequently do not capture the benefit appropriately because the main purpose of many genetic tests is personal utility of knowing the test results, and costs of the tests and counseling can be insufficient indicators of the total costs of care. This study provides an overview of points to consider for the assessment of benefits and harms from genetic tests in an ethically and economically reflected manner. We discuss whether genetic tests are sufficiently exceptional to warrant exceptional methods for assessment and appraisal.
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.