Paternalism and the ACMG recommendations on genomic incidental findings: patients seen but not heard.

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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Unsolved challenges of clinical whole-exome sequencing: a systematic literature review of end-users' views.BMC medical genomics · 2016
   Pooled it
2. A randomized study of digital versus genetic counselor return of actionable genetic research results to biobank participants (RESPECT3 study).BMC medical ethics · 2026
   Article
3. Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
   Article
4. Experiences and lessons learned by genetic counselors in returning secondary genetic findings to patients.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020
   Article
5. Genomic Contextualism: Shifting the Rhetoric of Genetic Exceptionalism.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2019
   Article
6. Responsibility, identity, and genomic sequencing: A comparison of published recommendations and patient perspectives on accepting or declining incidental findings.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2018
   Article
7. Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018
   Article
8. Ethical Issues in Contemporary Clinical Genetics.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2018
   Article
9. Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: Role of psychological and clinical factors.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018
   Article
10. The Continuing Evolution of Ethical Standards for Genomic Sequencing in Clinical Care: Restoring Patient Choice.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2017
    Article
11. How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2016
    Article
12. Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.Clinical genetics · 2016
    Article
13. Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015
    Article
14. The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015
    Article
15. Genomic analysis in the clinic: benefits and challenges for health care professionals and patients in Brazil.Journal of community genetics · 2015
    Article
16. To disclose, or not to disclose? Context matters.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015
    Article
17. Reporting incidental findings in genomic scale clinical sequencing--a clinical laboratory perspective: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2015
    Article
18. Use of contemporary genetics in cardiovascular diagnosis.Circulation · 2014
    Review
19. Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2014
    Article
20. Clinical tumor sequencing: an incidental casualty of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommendations for reporting of incidental findings.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response to Townsend et al.2013
• Comment on
  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.2013

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as