ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2015
Sickle Cell Trait Screening of Collegiate Athletes: Ethical Reasons for Program Reform.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence, demographic characteristics, and geographic distribution of sickle cell trait and sickle cell anemia births in Michigan, 1997-2014.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
- The carrier state for sickle cell disease is not completely harmless.Haematologica · 2019Review
- Genetic Testing by Sports Medicine Physicians in the United States: Attitudes, Experiences, and Knowledge.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Perspectives and Practices of Athletic Trainers and Team Physicians Implementing the 2010 NCAA Sickle Cell Trait Screening Policy.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Student-Athletes' Views on APOE Genotyping for Increased Risk of Poor Recovery after a Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) requires all student-athletes have their sickle cell trait (SCT) status confirmed prior to athletic participation. The NCAA approved the screening program in 2010 for institutions participating in Division I athletics and extended it in subsequent years to institutions at Division II and III levels. Ethical concerns about the controversial policy focus on its mandatory nature and potential impact on student-athletes, particularly through stigmatization of and discrimination against those with SCT. Organizations, such as the American Society of Hematology (ASH), oppose the imposition of SCT testing and instead recommend universal precautions that would protect the entire student-athlete population without revealing student-athletes' SCT statuses. This paper discusses these issues and offers recommendations, including genetic counseling, which would improve the current SCT screening program. It argues that implementation of universal precautions would ensure that the most ethically sound practices are afforded to every student-athlete.
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.