Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25854543›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2015

Perspectives on genetic and genomic technologies in an academic medical center: the duke experience.

Sara Huston Katsanis, Mollie A Minear, Allison Vorderstrasse, Nancy Yang, Jason W Reeves, Tejinder Rakhra-Burris, Robert Cook-Deegan, Geoffrey S Ginsburg, Leigh Ann Simmons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Systematic Molecular Phenotyping: A Path Toward Precision Emergency Medicine?Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2016
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sara Huston KatsanisCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Health System, Durham, NC 27708, USA. sara.katsanis@duke.edu.
Mollie A MinearCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Health System, Durham, NC 27708, USA. mollie.minear@duke.edu.
Allison VorderstrasseCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Health System, Durham, NC 27708, USA. allison.vorderstrasse@duke.edu.
Nancy YangIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA. nyyduke@gmail.com.
Jason W ReevesSanofi, Cambridge, MA 08807, USA. jason.reeves@sanofi.com.
Tejinder Rakhra-BurrisCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Health System, Durham, NC 27708, USA. teji.rb@duke.edu.
Robert Cook-DeeganCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Health System, Durham, NC 27708, USA. bob.cd@duke.edu.
Geoffrey S GinsburgCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Health System, Durham, NC 27708, USA. geoffrey.ginsburg@duke.edu.
Leigh Ann SimmonsCenter for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine and Health System, Durham, NC 27708, USA. leighann.simmons@duke.edu.

Funding

The Management and Organization Core will be administered by the Center for GenomP50HG003391 · NHGRI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI COOK-DEEGAN, ROBERT MULLAN · 2004 to 2014
$9.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG003391
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID25854543
PMCPMC4493486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.