ArticleChest2014
Grappling with genomic incidental findings in the clinical realm.
Article in Chest, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation among Consent Forms for Clinical Whole Exome Sequencing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age.Personalized medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We have learned a remarkable amount in recent decades about genomics and its potential contributions to human health and medical practice. However, genomic sequencing technology, which is starting to become incorporated into clinical care, also raises ethical challenges. In particular, there has been significant debate about the appropriate management of genomic incidental findings (GIFs), which we define as pathogenic or likely pathogenic test results that are not apparently relevant to the diagnostic indications for which the tests were ordered. Although there is an emerging consensus that clinicians will have at least some obligation to disclose GIFs to patients, the scope of that obligation is unclear. This commentary identifies nuanced issues that clinicians will likely face in the foreseeable future regarding their emerging obligations to disclose clinically actionable GIFs. Will clinicians be expected to look actively for GIFs? Should GIFs for adult-onset disorders be disclosed to children? What obligations will clinicians have to disclose GIFs to family members of deceased patients? What role should informed consent play? There is value to exploring the range of views on these questions at this time, before genomic sequencing has fully matured as a technology, so that clinicians can anticipate how they will respond to the discovery of GIFs once sequencing becomes a more routine part of clinical care. Genomics is ultimately going to play an important role in the practice of pulmonary medicine, and it is important for pulmonologists and other subspecialists to be well informed about what to expect.
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.