The ethics of cystic fibrosis carrier screening: where do we stand?

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cystic fibrosis carrier population screening in the primary care setting.American journal of human genetics · 1996
   Trial
2. Cystic fibrosis heterozygote screening in 5,161 pregnant women.American journal of human genetics · 1996
   Article
3. Perception of carrier status by cystic fibrosis siblings.American journal of human genetics · 1995
   Article
4. Analysis of four diverse population groups indicates that a subset of cystic fibrosis mutations occur in common among Caucasians.American journal of human genetics · 1992
   Article
5. Ethics of a genetic program for myotonic dystrophy.American journal of human genetics · 1991
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Ethics of a genetic program for myotonic dystrophy.1991
• Comment on
  The American Society of Human Genetics statement on cystic fibrosis screening.1990

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as