ArticleHuman genetics2012
Recommendations for ethical approaches to genotype-driven research recruitment.
Article in Human genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to communicate and what to disclose to participants in a recall-by-genotype research approach: a multistep empirical study.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Participant perspective on the recall-by-genotype research approach: a mixed-method embedded study with participants of the CHRIS study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Genotype first: Clinical genomics research through a reverse phenotyping approach.American journal of human genetics · 2023Review
- Ethical, legal and social/societal implications (ELSI) of recall-by-genotype (RbG) and genotype-driven-research (GDR) approaches: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Balancing scientific interests and the rights of participants in designing a recall by genotype study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Formalising recall by genotype as an efficient approach to detailed phenotyping and causal inference.Nature communications · 2018Review
- The ethics conundrum in Recall by Genotype (RbG) research: Perspectives from birth cohort participants.PloS one · 2018Article
- Clinical Genetic Testing for APOL1: Are we There Yet?Seminars in nephrology · 2017Review
- Genotype-based recall to study metabolic effects of genetic variation: a pilot study of PPARG Pro12Ala carriers.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2017Article
- Harms of Deception in FMR1 Premutation Genotype-Driven Recruitment.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2017Article
- Engaging Hmong adults in genomic and pharmacogenomic research: Toward reducing health disparities in genomic knowledge using a community-based participatory research approach.Journal of community genetics · 2017Article
- Genetics, sleep and memory: a recall-by-genotype study of ZNF804A variants and sleep neurophysiology.BMC medical genetics · 2015Article
- Biobanks and personalized medicine.Clinical genetics · 2014Review
- Genotype-driven recruitment: a strategy whose time has come?BMC medical genomics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recruiting research participants based on genetic information generated about them in a prior study is a potentially powerful way to study the functional significance of human genetic variation. However, it also presents significant ethical challenges that, to date, have received only minimal consideration. We convened a multi-disciplinary workshop to discuss key issues relevant to the conduct and oversight of genotype-driven recruitment and to translate those considerations into practical policy recommendations. Workshop participants were invited from around the US, and included genomic researchers and study coordinators, research participants, clinicians, bioethics scholars, experts in human research protections, and government representatives. Discussion was directed by experienced facilitators and informed by empirical data collected in a national survey of IRB chairs and in-depth interviews with research participants in studies where genotype-driven recontact occurred. A high degree of consensus was attained on the resulting seven recommendations, which cover informed consent disclosures and choices, the process for how and by whom participants are recontacted, the disclosure of individual genetic research results, and the importance of tailoring approaches based on specific contextual factors. These recommendations are intended to represent a balanced approach-protecting research participants, yet avoiding overly restrictive policies that hinder advancement on important scientific questions.
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.