ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2014
Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Pooled it
- Research participants' experiences with return of genetic research results and preferences for web-based alternatives.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Trial
- Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Trial
- Disclosing Pleiotropic Effects During Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2016Trial
- Genetic analysis and reporting from whole-exome sequencing data in 1052 patients with intellectual disability.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Viewing direct-to-consumer genetic test results for depression risk is psychologically well tolerated: Evidence from a longitudinal equivalence study.HGG advances · 2026Article
- The impact of uncertainty on disclosure of prenatal exome sequencing results: A vignette study among medical students.PloS one · 2026Article
- Global Perspectives on Managing Incidental and Secondary Findings in Genomic Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Policies, Implementation Challenges, and Stakeholder Perspectives.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Returning Incidental Research Findings FromArthritis care & research · 2024Article
- Participant views on practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic research results: a case study from Botswana.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2023Article
- Preferences for return of germline genome sequencing results for cancer patients and their genetic relatives in a research setting.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Article
- Behavioral and psychological impact of genome sequencing: a pilot randomized trial of primary care and cardiology patients.NPJ genomic medicine · 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
- Experiences and lessons learned by genetic counselors in returning secondary genetic findings to patients.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Perspectives regarding family disclosure of genetic research results in three racial and ethnic minority populations.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Article
- In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research.Public health genomics · 2020Article
10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Professional recommendations for the return of results from exome and whole-genome sequencing (ES/WGS) have been controversial. The lack of clear guidance about whether and, if so, how to return ES/WGS incidental results limits the extent to which individuals and families might benefit from ES/WGS. The perspectives of genetics professionals, particularly those at the forefront of using ES/WGS in clinics, are largely unknown. Data on stakeholder perspectives could help clarify how to weigh expert positions and recommendations. We conducted an online survey of 9,857 genetics professionals to learn their attitudes on the return of incidental results from ES/WGS and the recent American College of Medical Genetic and Genomics Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Of the 847 respondents, 760 completed the survey. The overwhelming majority of respondents thought that incidental ES/WGS results should be offered to adult patients (85%), healthy adults (75%), and the parents of a child with a medical condition (74%). The majority thought that incidental results about adult-onset conditions (62%) and carrier status (62%) should be offered to the parents of a child with a medical condition. About half thought that offered results should not be limited to those deemed clinically actionable. The vast majority (81%) thought that individual preferences should guide return. Genetics professionals' perspectives on the return of ES/WGS results differed substantially from current recommendations, underscoring the need to establish clear purpose for recommendations on the return of incidental ES/WGS results as professional societies grapple with developing and updating recommendations.
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.