ArticleClinical genetics2013
Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study.
Article in Clinical genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 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
- The impact of uncertainty on disclosure of prenatal exome sequencing results: A vignette study among medical students.PloS one · 2026Article
- Developing video education materials for the return of genomic test results to parents and adolescents.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Healthcare Professionals' Attitudes toward Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing in Pediatric Acute Care.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Attitudes toward and current status of disclosure of secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: a nation-wide survey of clinical genetics professionals in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2020Article
- Germline whole genome sequencing in pediatric oncology in Denmark-Practitioner perspectives.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Article
- Article
- Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- "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
- Article
- Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Population-based biobank participants' preferences for receiving genetic test results.Journal of human genetics · 2017Article
- Research Participants' Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Article
- A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research.American journal of human genetics · 2016Article
- 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
- Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know--that is not the question.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Lay Attitudes Toward Trust, Uncertainty, and the Return of Pediatric Research Results in Biobanking.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2016Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The introduction of clinical genome-wide sequencing raises complex issues regarding the management of incidental findings. However, there is a lack of empirical studies assessing views of providers involved in potential disclosure of such findings. In an anonymous survey of 279 clinical genetics professionals, we found that the vast majority of participants agreed that they were interested in knowing about clinically actionable incidental findings in themselves (96%) and their child (99%), and they reported that these types of findings should be disclosed in adult (96%) and minor (98%) patients. Approximately three-fourths agreed that they were personally interested in knowing about an adult-onset clinically actionable disease (78%) and a childhood-onset non-clinically actionable disease (75%) in their child. A similar percentage of participants (70%) felt that these two types of findings should be disclosed to patients. Forty-four percent of participants wanted to know about an incidental finding that indicates an adult-onset non-clinically actionable condition in themselves and 31% wanted to know about this type of information in their child. Findings from this study revealed participants' views highly dependent on clinical actionability. Further research is needed with a broader population of geneticists to increase generalizability, and with diverse patients to assess their perspectives about results disclosure from clinical sequencing.
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.