ArticlePharmacogenomics2013
Implications of the incidentalome for clinical pharmacogenomics.
Article in Pharmacogenomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacogenetics in Italy: current landscape and future prospects.Human genomics · 2024Review
- Assessment of the current status of real-world pharmacogenomic testing: informed consent, patient education, and related practices.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Advancing Pharmacogenomics from Single-Gene to Preemptive Testing.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2022Review
- Physicians' Attitudes and Ethical Obligations to Pharmacogenetic Testing.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- Genome-Wide Association Studies for Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity: Looking Back-Looking Forward to Next-Generation Innovation.Omics : a journal of integrative biology · 2017Article
- Clinical decision-making and secondary findings in systems medicine.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Comparison of delivery strategies for pharmacogenetic testing services.Pharmacogenetics and genomics · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Incidental findings have long posed challenges for healthcare providers, but the scope and scale of these challenges have increased with the introduction of new technologies. This article assesses the impact of incidental findings on the introduction of prospective pharmacogenomic testing into clinical use. Focusing on the challenges of the incidentalome, the large set of incidental findings potentially generated through genotyping, the paper argues that provisional approaches to managing incidental findings may be implemented if necessary to allow benefits of pharmacogenomic testing to be realized in the clinical setting. In the longer term, approaches to returning incidental findings may need to focus on limiting the number of incidental findings to a number that can be addressed by patients and providers.
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.