ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2015
Public perspectives on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Genetic counseling and testing for Asian Americans: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Drawing lines: how the public defines "Serious" genetic conditions for reproductive testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Best quality vs. sex selection - an analysis of embryo selection preferences for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy over a 10-year period.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits.Nature neuroscience · 2023Review
- Attitudes toward preimplantation genetic testing and quality of life among individuals with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Preimplantation Genetic Testing: A Perceptual Study From the Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2021Article
- Comparison of Patients' Ethical Perspectives of Preimplantation Embryo Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) vs. Monogenic Disorders (PGT-M).Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021Article
- Polygenic risk scoring of human embryos: a qualitative study of media coverage.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- The decision-making process, experience, and perceptions of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) users.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Article
- What do people think about genetics? A systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2019Review
- High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia.Reproductive health · 2018Article
- Acceptable applications of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) among Israeli PGD users.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
- Prenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities in IVF patients that opted for preimplantation genetic screening/diagnosis (PGS/D): a need for revised algorithms in the era of personalized medicine.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo study the perspectives of the United States population towards the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in various clinical scenarios.
methodsOnline cross-sectional population based questionnaire of a nationally representative sample according to age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, education and religion.
resultsA total of 1006 completed the questionnaire with an overall response rate of 94%. A majority supported PGD for diseases fatal early in life or those causing lifelong disability (72.9 and 66.7%, respectively); only 48.0% supported PGD for diseases that manifest late in life. Respondents were more supportive of PGD for genetic diseases if they were aware of PGD prior to the survey (OR = 1.64; CI = 1.13-2.39). However, a small proportion were in favor of genetically-based trait selection: 21.1% supported PGD for sex selection, 14.6% for physical traits and 18.9% for personality traits. Compared to women, men were nearly two- to three-fold more supportive of PGD for sex selection (OR = 1.65; CI = 1.20-2.78), physical traits (OR = 2.38; CI = 1.60-3.48) and personality traits (OR = 2.31; CI = .64-3.26). Compared to Caucasians, Asians (OR = 3.87; CI = 1.71-8.78) and African Americans (OR = 1.61; CI = 1.04-2.74) were more supportive of PGD for sex selection.
conclusionsIn a nationally representative sample, a majority supported PGD to identify early onset diseases. We noted significant variation in opinions by sex, race, and education. There was more support among those with prior knowledge of PGD suggesting that education about PGD may foster favorable opinions. This study identifies public knowledge and attitudes that may be used to shape future research hypotheses and clinical policies.
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.