ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016
Family health history reporting is sensitive to small changes in wording.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the genome-informed risk assessment (GIRA) approach from eMERGE in an independent health system.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Coronary risk factor profiles according to different age categories in premature coronary artery disease patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Systematic comparison of family history and polygenic risk across 24 common diseases.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Cancer screening and breast cancer family history in Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latina women in California.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- How is family health history discussed in routine primary healthcare? A qualitative study of archived family doctor consultations.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFamily health history is often collected through single-item queries that ask patients whether their family members are affected by certain conditions. The specific wording of these queries may influence what individuals report.
methodsParents of Boston Children's Hospital patients were invited to participate in a Web-based survey about the return of individual genomic research results regarding their children. Participants reported whether 11 types of medical conditions affected them or their family. Randomization determined whether participants were specifically instructed to consider their extended family.
resultsFamily health history was reported by 2,901 participants. Those asked to consider their extended family were more likely to report a positive family history for 8 of 11 medical conditions. The largest differences were observed for cancer (65.1 vs. 45.7%; P < 0.001), cardiovascular conditions (72.5 vs. 56.0%; P < 0.001), and endocrine/hormonal conditions (50.9 vs. 36.7%; P < 0.001).
conclusionsSmall alterations to the way family health history queries are worded can substantially change patient responses. Clinicians and researchers need to be sensitive about patients' tendencies to omit extended family from health history reporting unless specifically asked to consider them.Genet Med 18 12, 1308-1311.
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.