ArticleThe Hastings law journal2013
Seeking Genomic Knowledge: The Case for Clinical Restraint.
Article in The Hastings law journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.American journal of human genetics · 2023Review
- Informed consent practices for exome sequencing: An interview study with clinical geneticists in the Netherlands.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) in Clinical Genetics Research.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Approaches to carrier testing and results disclosure in translational genomics research: The clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium experience.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2018Article
- "Not pathogenic until proven otherwise": perspectives of UK clinical genomics professionals toward secondary findings in context of a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team and the 100,000 Genomes Project.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW.Journal of health care law & policy · 2017Article
- Is Whole-Exome Sequencing an Ethically Disruptive Technology? Perspectives of Pediatric Oncologists and Parents of Pediatric Patients With Solid Tumors.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2016Article
- Experiences with obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2015Article
- Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing.American journal of human genetics · 2014Article
- Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice.Current genetic medicine reportsReview
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Genome sequencing technology provides new and promising tests for clinical practice, including whole genome sequencing, which measures an individual's complete DNA sequence, and whole exome sequencing, which measures the DNA for all genes coding for proteins. These technologies make it possible to test for multiple genes in a single test, which increases the efficiency of genetic testing. However, they can also produce large amounts of information that cannot be interpreted or is of limited clinical utility. This additional information could be distracting for patients and clinicians, and contribute to unnecessary healthcare costs. The potential for genomic sequencing to improve care will be context-dependent, varying for different patients and clinical settings. This Article argues that a disciplined approach is needed, incorporating research to assess when and how genomic information can improve clinical outcomes, practice guidelines that direct optimal uses of genomic sequencing, and efforts to limit the production of genomic information unrelated to the clinical needs of the patient. Without this approach, genomic testing could add to current unsustainable healthcare costs and prove unaffordable in the long run.
Identifiers
24688162PMC3969739W136604480What 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.