Disclosing results to genomic research participants: differences that matter.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Health Research with Big Data: Time for Systemic Oversight.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2018
   Article
2. Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine.BMC medical ethics · 2016
   Article
3. Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research.Translational vision science & technology · 2016
   Article
4. Response to open peer commentaries on "Genomic inheritances: disclosing individual research results from whole-exome sequencing to deceased participants' relatives".The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2012
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Genomic inheritances: disclosing individual research results from whole-exome sequencing to deceased participants' relatives.2012

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as