Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26334178›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016

Development and preliminary evaluation of an online educational video about whole-genome sequencing for research participants, patients, and the general public.

Saskia C Sanderson, Sabrina A Suckiel, Micol Zweig, Erwin P Bottinger, Ethylin Wang Jabs, Lynne D Richardson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Animated videos for childhood cancer precision medicine: development and evaluation with parents and patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions of patients who received elective genomic testing as a clinical service.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Saskia C SandersonDepartment of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8150-5884
Sabrina A SuckielDepartment of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Micol ZweigDepartment of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Erwin P BottingerInstitute of Personalized Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6868-6676
Ethylin Wang JabsDepartment of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Lynne D RichardsonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs whole-genome sequencing (WGS) increases in availability, WGS educational aids are needed for research participants, patients, and the general public. Our aim was therefore to develop an accessible and scalable WGS educational aid.

methodsWe engaged multiple stakeholders in an iterative process over a 1-year period culminating in the production of a novel 10-minute WGS educational animated video, "Whole Genome Sequencing and You" (https://goo.gl/HV8ezJ). We then presented the animated video to 281 online-survey respondents (the video-information group). There were also two comparison groups: a written-information group (n = 281) and a no-information group (n = 300).

resultsIn the video-information group, 79% reported the video was easy to understand, satisfaction scores were high (mean 4.00 on 1-5 scale, where 5 = high satisfaction), and knowledge increased significantly. There were significant differences in knowledge compared with the no-information group but few differences compared with the written-information group. Intention to receive personal results from WGS and decisional conflict in response to a hypothetical scenario did not differ between the three groups.

conclusionsThe educational animated video, "Whole Genome Sequencing and You," was well received by this sample of online-survey respondents. Further work is needed to evaluate its utility as an aid to informed decision making about WGS in other populations.Genet Med 18 5, 501-512.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicVideo RecordingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunications MediaDecision Support TechniquesFemaleGenome, HumanHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID26334178
PMCPMC4857185

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.