ArticleClinical genetics2016
Disclosing genetic risk for coronary heart disease: effects on perceived personal control and genetic counseling satisfaction.
Article in Clinical genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01936675 (Myocardial Infarction Genes), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 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.
Myocardial Infarction Genes (MI-GENES) Study - Using Genomic Data to Refine Risk Assessment for Heart Attack
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- EMR documentation of physician-patient communication following genomic counseling for actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomic results.Clinical genetics · 2017Trial
- Incorporating a Genetic Risk Score Into Coronary Heart Disease Risk Estimates: Effect on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels (the MI-GENES Clinical Trial).Circulation · 2016Trial
- Inherited risk of coronary artery disease: redefining care with imaging and genetics.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Effect of disclosing a polygenic risk score for coronary heart disease on adverse cardiovascular events: 10-year follow-up of the MI-GENES randomized clinical trial.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Nursing Interventions and Care Strategies for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A Comprehensive Review.Galen medical journal · 2023Article
- Clinical utility of polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2022 · on this mapReview
- Psychosocial Effects of Receiving Genome-Wide Polygenic Risk Information Concerning Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Heart Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of a French Version of the Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale (GCSS) as an Outcome Measure of Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Genetics, coronary artery disease, and myocardial revascularization: will novel genetic risk scores bring new answers?Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2018Review
- Cardiovascular Precision Medicine in the Genomics Era.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2018Review
- Disclosing Genetic Risk for Coronary Heart Disease: Attitudes Toward Personal Information in Health Records.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017Article
- Cardiovascular pharmacogenomics: current status and future directions.Journal of human genetics · 2016Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated whether disclosure of coronary heart disease (CHD) genetic risk influences perceived personal control (PPC) and genetic counseling satisfaction (GCS). Participants (n = 207, age: 45-65 years) were randomized to receive estimated 10-year risk of CHD based on a conventional risk score (CRS) with or without a genetic risk score (GRS). Risk estimates were disclosed by a genetic counselor who also reviewed how GRS altered risk in those randomized to CRS+GRS. Each participant subsequently met with a physician and then completed surveys to assess PPC and GCS. Participants who received CRS+GRS had higher PPC than those who received CRS alone although the absolute difference was small (25.2 ± 2.7 vs 24.1 ± 3.8, p = 0.04). A greater proportion of CRS+GRS participants had higher GCS scores (17.3 ± 5.3 vs 15.9 ± 6.3, p = 0.06). In the CRS+GRS group, PPC and GCS scores were not correlated with GRS. Within both groups, PPC and GCS scores were similar in patients with or without family history (p = NS). In conclusion, patients who received their genetic risk of CHD had higher PPC and tended to have higher GCS. Our findings suggest that disclosure of genetic risk of CHD together with conventional risk estimates is appreciated by patients. Whether this results in improved outcomes needs additional investigation.
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.