ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2015
Perspectives on genetic and genomic technologies in an academic medical center: the duke experience.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Graduate Medical Trainees Prepared for the Personalized Genomic Medicine Revolution? Trainee Perspectives at One Institution.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Pharmacogenomic Testing In Pediatrics: Navigating The Ethical, Social, And Legal Challenges.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2019Article
- Systematic Molecular Phenotyping: A Path Toward Precision Emergency Medicine?Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2016Review
- Practical considerations for implementing genomic information resources. Experiences from eMERGE and CSER.Applied clinical informatics · 2016Article
- Beyond BRCA: A Pilot Program to Assess and Improve Knowledge of Pharmacogenomic Testing Among Advanced Practitioners in a Breast Cancer Treatment Setting.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncologyReview
- Perceptions of Personalized Medicine in an Academic Health System: Educational Findings.Journal of contemporary medical educationArticle
- Hospital nursing leadership-led interventions increased genomic awareness and educational intent in Magnet settings.Nursing outlookArticle
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
unlabelledIn this age of personalized medicine, genetic and genomic testing is expected to become instrumental in health care delivery, but little is known about its actual implementation in clinical practice.
methodsWe surveyed Duke faculty and healthcare providers to examine the extent of genetic and genomic testing adoption. We assessed providers' use of genetic and genomic testing options and indications in clinical practice, providers' awareness of pharmacogenetic applications, and providers' opinions on returning research-generated genetic test results to participants. Most clinician respondents currently use family history routinely in their clinical practice, but only 18 percent of clinicians use pharmacogenetics. Only two respondents correctly identified the number of drug package inserts with pharmacogenetic indications. We also found strong support for the return of genetic research results to participants. Our results demonstrate that while Duke healthcare providers are enthusiastic about genomic technologies, use of genomic tools outside of research has been limited. Respondents favor return of research-based genetic results to participants, but clinicians lack knowledge about pharmacogenetic applications. We identified challenges faced by this institution when implementing genetic and genomic testing into patient care that should inform a policy and education agenda to improve provider support and clinician-researcher partnerships.
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.