ArticlePatient education and counseling2013
Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Pooled it
- Stakeholders' perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: systematic review of the literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015Pooled it
- The impact of uncertainty on disclosure of prenatal exome sequencing results: A vignette study among medical students.PloS one · 2026Article
- How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Research biobank participants attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and health record confidentiality.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Article
- Patients' and Members of the Public's Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Breast Cancer Screening Should Embrace Precision Medicine: Evidence by Reviewing Economic Evaluations in China.Advances in therapy · 2023Review
- To disclose, or not to disclose? Perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Experiences and lessons learned by genetic counselors in returning secondary genetic findings to patients.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Key Expert Stakeholder Perceptions of the Law of Genomics: Identified Problems and Potential Solutions.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- "Not pathogenic until proven otherwise": perspectives of UK clinical genomics professionals toward secondary findings in context of a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team and the 100,000 Genomes Project.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- A RaDiCAL gene hunt.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2017Review
- Article
- Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Article
- A Systematic Review of the Management of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.BEOnline : journal of the West African bioethics training program · 2016Article
- Single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays and unexpected consanguinity: considerations for clinicians when returning results to families.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015Article
- Canadian Research Ethics Board Leadership Attitudes to the Return of Genetic Research Results to Individuals and Their Families.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2015Article
- So rare we need to hunt for them: reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings.Genome medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEvidence documenting management of incidental findings (IFs) from clinical genomic testing is limited. The aim of this study was to examine genetics specialists' perspectives regarding current and preferred disclosure of clinical genomic IFs.
methods50 genetics specialists, including medical geneticists, laboratory professionals, genetic counselors, and nurses participated in structured telephone interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics.
resultsMost specialists had encountered IFs, but definitions of IFs varied. They discussed challenges with informing patients about the prospect of IFs and disclosing IFs to patients. Causing psychological harm to patients was a concern. Participants were divided on whether IFs needed to be clinically significant and/or actionable in order to be disclosed to patients. Creating formal disclosure guidelines was considered useful, but only if they were flexible. Additional counseling, more interdisciplinary communication, maintaining contact with patients, and a centralized database to interpret IFs were also proposed.
conclusionGenetics specialists offer insights into the challenges of defining IFs, knowing when and how to disclose them, and the potential need for flexible disclosure guidelines. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further discussion between practicing genetics specialists is needed to develop consensus on the development of best-practice guidelines for IF management.
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.