ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2015
Association of Researcher Characteristics with Views on Return of Incidental Findings from Genomic Research.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled 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
- Implementing a consultation service for translating genomic research findings into the clinic: Lessons from the SickKids Genome Board.Paediatrics & child health · 2025Article
- Researcher views on returning results from multi-omics data to research participants: insights from The Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium (MoTrPAC) Study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- dbBIP: a comprehensive bipolar disorder database for genetic research.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- Exome sequencing study in a clinical research setting finds general acceptance of study returning secondary genomic findings with little decisional conflict.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Experiences and perspectives on the return of secondary findings among genetic epidemiologists.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Consent for clinical genome sequencing: considerations from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.Personalized medicine · 2019Article
- Stakeholders' views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Normative and conceptual ELSI research: what it is, and why it's important.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Exploring neurologists' perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Evaluation of Recipients of Positive and Negative Secondary Findings Evaluations in a Hybrid CLIA-Research Sequencing Pilot.American journal of human genetics · 2018Article
- Impact of Receiving Secondary Results from Genomic Research: A 12-Month Longitudinal Study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Research Participants' Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Genomic Testing: a Genetic Counselor's Personal Reflection on Three Years of Consenting and Testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
- Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole exome/ genome sequencing (WES/WGS) is now commonly used in research and is increasingly used in clinical care to identify the genetic basis of rare and unknown diseases. The management of incidental findings (IFs) generated through these analyses is debated within the research community. To examine how views regarding genomic research IFs are associated with researcher characteristics and experiences, we surveyed genetic professionals and assessed the effect of professional background and experience on their opinions. Researchers who did not have clinical training, provide clinical care to research participants, or have prior experience returning research results were in general more inclined to offer return of IFs than their colleagues with these characteristics. Understanding this will be important to fully appreciate the impact that policies on return of genetic IFs could have on participants, researchers, and genomic research.
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.