Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26141521›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling1998

Billing and Record-Keeping for Familial Cancer Risk Counseling: A National Survey.

B A Bernhardt, B N Peshkin, Y Kemel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. An economic viewpoint on alternative strategies for identifying persons with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics
    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

3 authors.

B A Bernhardt, , bbernhar@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu.
B N Peshkin
Y Kemel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We surveyed 111 genetic counselors providing cancer risk counseling (CRC) in order to document their billing and record-keeping practices. Of the 75 respondents, billing was generally done under the supervising physician with a wide variation in charges. Follow-up telephone interviews with 28 counselors who charge patients revealed that billing was usually done using the CPT codes for consultations, and the ICD-9 diagnostic codes for cancer (if applicable), a medical complaint, or a family history of cancer code. Most counselors exclude some clinical information from the patient's medical record. In consultation notes, 81% of counselors document a discussion of genetic testing, but only 37% document the patient's actual testing decision, and only 19% document test results. In anticipation of increased referrals for CRC, data are needed on the components of a CRC visit, the amount of time required to provide CRC, patient outcomes measures, and charges and reimbursement. The feasibility and advisability of keeping results separate from the patient's medical record also needs to be addressed.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.