Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24026254›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014

Genomic counseling: next generation counseling.

Rachel Mills, Susanne B Haga

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Cancer communication research in the era of genomics and precision medicine: a scoping review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel MillsInstitute for Genome Sciences & Policy, Duke University, 304 Research Drive, North Building, Room #227, Box 90141, Durham, NC, 27708, USA, r.mills@duke.edu.
Susanne B Haga
Duke University · US

Funding

Implications of Health and Genetic Literacy for Genomic MedicineR21HL096573 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI HAGA, SUSANNE · 2010 to 2011
$429k
NHLBI NIH HHS 1R2HL096573-01A1NHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL096573
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalized medicine continues to expand with the development and increasing use of genome-based testing. While these advances present new opportunities for diagnosis and risk assessment, they also present challenges to clinical delivery. Genetic counselors will play an important role in ushering in this new era of testing; however, it will warrant a shift from traditional genetic counseling to "genomic counseling." This shift will be marked by a move from reactive genetic testing for diagnosis of primarily single-gene diseases to proactive genome-based testing for multiple complex diseases for the purpose of disease prevention. It will also require discussion of risk information for a number of diseases, some of which may have low relative risks or weak associations, and thus, may not substantially impact clinical care. Additionally, genomic counselors will expand their roles, particularly in the area of health promotion to reduce disease risk. This additional role will require a style of counseling that is more directive than traditional counseling and require greater knowledge about risk reducing behaviors and disease screening.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingGenome, HumanGenetic TestingHumansProfessional Role

Identifiers

PMID24026254
PMCPMC3954469
OpenAlexW1969043971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.