ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2015
Towards a European consensus for reporting incidental findings during clinical NGS testing.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- International policies guiding the selection, analysis, and clinical management of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: A systematic review.American journal of human genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Unsolved challenges of clinical whole-exome sequencing: a systematic literature review of end-users' views.BMC medical genomics · 2016Pooled it
- Reporting practices for secondary findings among ERN GENTURIS member institutions in 15 European countries.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- European Reference Networks as core health structures where referring genetic newborn screening positive infants: an innovative operational research framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Incidental genomic findings in large scale research: using the "3-I framework" to reveal policy considerations.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.Human genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- Target Enrichment Approaches for Next-Generation Sequencing Applications in Oncology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Clinical and Genetic Re-Evaluation of Inherited Retinal Degeneration Pedigrees following Initial Negative Findings on Panel-Based Next Generation Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Improving diagnostics of rare genetic diseases with NGS approaches.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Analysis of laboratory reporting practices using a quality assessment of a virtual patient.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Cancer Panel Data Conversion Using International Standards to Implement a Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing Research System: Single-Institution Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Genetic testing offer for inherited neuromuscular diseases within the EURO-NMD reference network: A European survey study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Evaluation of molecular inversion probe versus TruSeq® custom methods for targeted next-generation sequencing.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Criteria for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome sequencing - a focus group study on professional practices and perspectives in Belgian genetic centres.BMC medical genomics · 2019Article
- Association of variants in HTRA1 and NOTCH3 with MRI-defined extremes of cerebral small vessel disease in older subjects.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2019Article
- Misattributed parentage as an unanticipated finding during exome/genome sequencing: current clinical laboratory practices and an opportunity for standardization.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: what does actionable in childhood really mean?Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) examined the issue of incidental findings in whole exome and whole genome sequencing, and introduced recommendations to search for, evaluate and report medically actionable variants in a set of 56 genes. At a debate held during the 2014 European Society for Human Genetics Conference (ESHG) in Milan, Italy, the first author of that paper presented this view in a debate session that did not end with a conclusive vote from the mainly European audience for or against reporting back actionable incidental findings. In this meeting report, we elaborate on the discussions held during a special meeting hosted at the ESHG in 2013 from posing the question 'How to reach a (European) consensus on reporting incidental findings and unclassified variants in diagnostic next generation sequencing'. We ask whether an European consensus exists on the reporting of incidental findings in genome diagnostics, and present a series of key issues that require discussion at both a national and European level in order to develop recommendations for handling incidental findings and unclassified variants in line with the legal and cultural particularities of individual European member states.
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.