ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014
Changes in specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination: then and now.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The persistent lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) more than a decade after passage.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protections.Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
- Genetic information, non-discrimination, and privacy protections in genetic counseling practice.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Article
- "Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing.Familial cancer · 2014Article
- Counterpoint: Angelina's choice-or the choice of anyone else in her place.South Asian journal of cancer · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We surveyed cancer genetics specialists in 1998 to learn what they would do if at 50% risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. We chose to repeat our study 14 years later, to examine how perspectives have changed with the extensive data now available. In July 2012 we surveyed the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group via an internet based survey. We found statistically significant increases in the percentage of specialists who: would undergo BRCA testing (p = 0.0006), opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (p =0.0001), opt for prophylactic removal of their uterus and ovaries for Lynch syndrome (p =0.0057 and P = 0.0090, respectively), and bill testing to insurance (p >0.0001). There were also statistically significant decreases in the percentage of participants who would have their colon removed for Lynch syndrome (p = 0.0002) and use an alias when pursuing testing (p > 0.0001). Over the past 14 years there has been a major change in perspective amongst cancer genetic specialists regarding genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23852268What 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.