ArticleFamilial cancer2016
Initial clinical validation of Health Heritage, a patient-facing tool for personal and family history collection and cancer risk assessment.
Article in Familial cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leveraging Health Information Technology to Collect Family Cancer History: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021Pooled it
- Validation of a guidelines-based digital tool to assess the need for germline cancer genetic testing.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2024Article
- Association of Family History with the Development of Breast Cancer: A Cohort Study of 129,374 Women in KoGES Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- What characterizes cancer family history collection tools? A critical literature review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Review
- Review and Comparison of Electronic Patient-Facing Family Health History Tools.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Personal and family health histories remain important independent risk factors for cancer; however they are currently not being well collected or used effectively. Health Heritage was designed to address this need. The purpose of this study was to validate the ability of Health Heritage to identify patients appropriate for further genetic evaluation and to accurately stratify cancer risk. A retrospective chart review was conducted on 100 random patients seen at an adult genetics clinic presenting with concern for an inherited predisposition to cancer. Relevant personal and family history obtained from the patients' medical records was entered into Health Heritage. Recommendations by Health Heritage were compared to national guidelines of eligibility for genetic evaluation. Agreement between Health Heritage referral for genetic evaluation and guideline eligibility for genetic evaluation was 97% (sensitivity 98% and specificity 88%). Risk stratification for cancer was also compared between Health Heritage and those documented by a geneticist. For patients at increased risk for breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer as determined by the geneticist, risk stratification by Health Heritage agreed 90, 93, and 75%, respectively. Discordances in risk stratification were attributed to both complex situations better handled by the geneticist and Health Heritage's adherence to incorporating all information into its algorithms. Health Heritage is a clinically valid tool to identify patients appropriate for further genetic evaluation and to encourage them to confirm the assessment and management recommendations with cancer genetic experts. Health Heritage also provides an estimate of cancer risk that is complementary to a genetics team.
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.