ReviewJournal of applied genetics2016
Privacy and confidentiality measures in genetic testing and counselling: arguing on genetic exceptionalism again?
Review in Journal of applied genetics, 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.
- Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of the current status of real-world pharmacogenomic testing: informed consent, patient education, and related practices.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Review
- Genetic testing-whether to allow complete freedom? Direct to consumer tests versus genetic tests for medical purposes.Journal of applied genetics · 2022Review
- How Sensitive Is Genetic Data?Biopreservation and biobanking · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical confidentiality in clinical genetics poses an important question about its scope, which would be in line with professional ethics and simple honesty. It is already known that the maintenance of absolute anonymity, bearing in mind the current progress of genetic techniques, is virtually impossible. On the other hand, our insight into the information contained in the human genome is increasing. This mini-review presents the authors' standpoint regarding this complex and difficult issue.
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.