ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2015
Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 3 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
85 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- Evidence for penetrance in patients without a family history of disease: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Pooled it
- Unsolved challenges of clinical whole-exome sequencing: a systematic literature review of end-users' views.BMC medical genomics · 2016Pooled it
- An electronic review of clinical outcomes after return of actionable genetic research results from a health system research biobank.European journal of medical genetics · 2025Trial
- Communicating BRCA research results to patients enrolled in international clinical trials: lessons learnt from the AGO-OVAR 16 study.BMC medical ethics · 2016Trial
- A randomized study of digital versus genetic counselor return of actionable genetic research results to biobank participants (RESPECT3 study).BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The impact of uncertainty on disclosure of prenatal exome sequencing results: A vignette study among medical students.PloS one · 2026Article
- Genomics in Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation: From Risk Stratification to Personalized Medicine.Genes · 2025Review
- Mitochondrial DNA Mutations and Epigenetic Regulation in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Development.British journal of biomedical science · 2025Review
- Incidental genomic findings in large scale research: using the "3-I framework" to reveal policy considerations.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Applying whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in breast cancer: a review of the landscape.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Review
- Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Hope, but never expect? Comparing parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward return of results from diagnostic exome sequencing for their child.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Phenotype-Driven Molecular Genetic Test Recommendation for Diagnosing Pediatric Rare Disorders.Research square · 2023Article
- Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2023Review
- Feeding back of individual genetic results in Botswana: mapping opportunities and challenges.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Core elements of participant consent documents for Canadian human genomics research and the National Human Genome Library: guidance for policy.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022Article
- Article
25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic testing based on whole-genome sequencing (WGS) often returns results that are not directly clinically actionable as well as raising the possibility of incidental (secondary) findings. In this article, we first survey the laws and policies guiding both researchers and clinicians in the return of results for WGS-based genetic testing. We then provide an overview of the landscape of international legislation and policies for return of these results, including considerations for return of incidental findings. Finally, we consider a range of approaches for the return of results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26239711What 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.