SynthesisGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2015
Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Picking Up the Phone: Clinical Perspectives on Recontacting Patients and Their Families.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Review
- Population-based genetic carrier screening. A consensus statement from the Spanish societies: AEGH, AEDP, ASEBIR, SEAGEN, SEF and SEGCD.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Who owns that blood? Recontacting donors with results from genetic testing after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Ethical, legal, and policy dimensions and contentions for reanalysis and reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing results.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- DNA sequencing in oncology: a focus group study on a duty to recontact.Future science OA · 2024Article
- Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing.Journal of medical genetics · 2024Article
- The Importance of Copy Number Variant Analysis in Patients with Monogenic Kidney Disease.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Searching for a sense of closure: parental experiences of recontacting after a terminated pregnancy for congenital malformations.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- The Need to Standardize the Reanalysis of Genomic Sequencing Results: Findings from Interviews with Underserved Families in Genomic Research.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Recontact: a survey of current practices and BRCA1/2 testing in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- Equity implications of patient-initiated recontact and follow-up in clinical genetics.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Recontacting in medical genetics: the implications of a broadening knowledge base.Human genetics · 2022Review
- "I wish that there was more info": characterizing the uncertainty experienced by carriers of pathogenic ATM and/or CHEK2 variants.Familial cancer · 2022Article
- Opinions and experiences of recontacting patients: a survey of Australasian genetic health professionals.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study.Human genetics · 2021Article
- Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Article
- Ethical Issues in Consent for the Reuse of Data in Health Data Platforms.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Recontacting non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer patients for germline CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant testing: uptake and patient experiences.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWith rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice.
methodsWe report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review.
resultsThe empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients.
conclusionTo advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.
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.