ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2014
Availability of treatment drives decisions of genetic health professionals about disclosure of incidental findings.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study.Human genetics · 2021Article
- Health-care practitioners' preferences for the return of secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: a discrete choice experiment.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Article
- Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- Is "incidental finding" the best term?: a study of patients' preferences.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing.American journal of human 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrasting opinions exist regarding the disclosure of incidental findings detected through clinical genomic testing. This study used a discrete choice experiment to investigate genetic health professionals' preferences for the disclosure of incidental findings in an Australian paediatric setting. Four attributes of conditions relating to incidental findings were investigated: availability of prevention and treatment, chance of symptoms ever developing, age of onset and severity. Questionnaires from 59 Australian genetic health professionals were analysed. Results show that when evaluating incidental findings for disclosure, these professionals value the availability of prevention and treatment for the condition above all other characteristics included in the study. The framework of this discrete choice experiment can be used to investigate the preferences of other stakeholders such as paediatricians and parents about disclosure of incidental findings. The results of this study may be considered when assessing which categories of incidental findings are most suitable for disclosure in clinical practice.
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.