ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part A2016
"This lifetime commitment": Public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening.
Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Equity and timeliness as factors in the effectiveness of an ethical prenatal sequencing service: reflections from parents and professionals.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Rethinking the Burden of Traditional Informed Consent Prior to Prenatal Genetic Screening.The Hastings Center report · 2025Article
- Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2022Article
- What do people think about genetics? A systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2019Review
- Ethics of Human Genome Editing.Annual review of medicine · 2019Review
- Coming to terms with the imperfectly normal child: attitudes of Israeli parents of screen-positive infants regarding subsequent prenatal diagnosis.Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Patients' Knowledge of Prenatal Screening for Trisomy 21.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome?Prenatal diagnosis · 2017Review
- Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues.Current genetic medicine reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, new noninvasive prenatal genetic screening technologies for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions have become commercially available. Unique characteristics of these screening tests have reignited long-standing concerns about prenatal testing for intellectual and developmental disabilities. We conducted a web-based survey of a sample of the US public to examine how attitudes towards disability inform views of prenatal testing in the context of these rapidly advancing prenatal genetic screening technologies. Regardless of opinion toward disability, the majority of respondents supported both the availability of screening and the decision to continue a pregnancy positive for aneuploidy. Individuals rationalized their support with various conceptions of disability; complications of the expressivist argument and other concerns from the disability literature were manifested in many responses analyzed.
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.