ArticleJournal of community genetics2014
Captious certainties: makings, meanings and misreadings of consumer-oriented genetic testing.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethics of early detection of disease risk factors: A scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Limiting medical certainties? Funding challenges for German and comparable public healthcare systems due to AI prediction and how to address them.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Review
- Factors Associated with Acceptability, Consideration and Intention of Uptake of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Survey Study.Public health genomics · 2018Article
- Predictive genetic testing, risk communication, and risk perception: an international expert meeting in Berlin, Germany.Journal of community genetics · 2014Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Members of the scientific and medical communities concerned with genetic testing might wonder, why cultural and ethical analyses of genetic testing are increasing again, especially since legal frameworks have, by now, come to provide more solid grounds for the routine application of genetic testing on both levels of application, diagnostics, and prediction. This contribution aims to shed light on the changing concept of genetic testing as it is raised by novel cultural practices and perceptions mainly triggered by direct-to-consumer predictive testing, including the phenomenon of a new genetic exceptionalism "from below". We are seeking to determine what is at stake in this practice and what consequences arise from it for the medical and scientific community. What exactly happens as we move from diagnostic to prognostic medicine? Above all, this article pivots on the notion of captious certainties, a concept, which we will elaborate on as our argument progresses.
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.