ArticleCurrent protocols in human genetics2013
Management of incidental findings in clinical genomic sequencing.
Article in Current protocols in human genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01736566 (The MedSeq Project Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
The MedSeq Project Pilot Study: Integrating Whole Genome Sequencing Into the Practice of Clinical Medicine
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Obtaining a Diagnostic Yield via Scan findings prior to the introduction of SEquencing retrospectivelY (ODYSSEY): a cohort study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Article
- Cell-Free DNA Results Indicating Mosaic Monosomy X of Likely Maternal Origin: Impact on Genetic Counseling Practices and Patient Experiences.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Next Generation Sequencing Methods for Diagnosis of Epilepsy Syndromes.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Review
- Incidentalome from Genomic Sequencing: A Barrier to Personalized Medicine?EBioMedicine · 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
- A Systematic Review of the Management of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.BEOnline : journal of the West African bioethics training program · 2016Article
- Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing.Journal of personalized medicine · 2015Review
- Genome-Wide Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Fetal Single-Gene Disorders.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2015Review
- Management of Incidental Findings in the Era of Next-generation Sequencing.Current genomics · 2015Article
- Genetic counselors' views and experiences with the clinical integration of genome sequencing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Article
- Premature guidance about whole-genome sequencing.Personalized medicine · 2013Article
- Will New Genetic Techniques Like Exome Sequencing Obviate the Need for Clinical Expertise? No.Movement disorders clinical practiceArticle
- Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research.The Hastings Center reportArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic sequencing is becoming accurate, fast, and inexpensive, and is rapidly being incorporated into clinical practice. Incidental findings, which result in large numbers from genomic sequencing, are a potential barrier to the utility of this new technology due to their high prevalence and the lack of evidence or guidelines available to guide their clinical interpretation. This unit reviews the definition, classification, and management of incidental findings from genomic sequencing. The unit focuses on the clinical aspects of handling incidental findings, with an emphasis on the key role of clinical context in defining incidental findings and determining their clinical relevance and utility.
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.