ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2017
Patient Recall, Interpretation, and Perspective of an Inconclusive Long QT Syndrome Genetic Test Result.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Perceptions of genetic variant reclassification in patients with inherited cardiac disease.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Trial
- The multigenerational impact of long QT syndrome: A Gitxsan perspective.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Evolving cardiovascular genetic counseling needs in the era of precision medicine.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Perceived self-efficacy and empowerment in patients at increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Discovery of over 200 new and expanded genetic conditions using GeneMatcher.Human mutation · 2022Article
- The Multifaced Perspectives of Genetic Testing in Pediatric Cardiomyopathies and Channelopathies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Experience of Asian males communicating cardiac genetic risk within the family.Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients' perceptions of inconclusive results have been previously investigated in cancer genetics. The differences in how patients recall and interpret an uninformative test result compared to a known pathogenic result can affect medical decisions post disclosure. However, there is little to no data available on patients' interpretation and perception of uninformative genetic results in inherited heart disease. We report the results of a qualitative analysis of 16 telephone interviews with participants who received a negative or a variant of unknown significance (VUS) result from Long QT syndrome (LQTS) genetic testing. Our results suggest that the type of result (negative versus VUS) does not affect recall, regardless of the reason for testing. When receiving a negative result, a majority of participants appropriately perceived no change in their diagnosis, while the perception of risk for family members varied. The majority of participants felt they maintained an awareness of their condition after the result disclosure, and that clinical follow-up was similar to that planned prior to the genetic test result. Further work is needed to determine if there are any differences between obtaining a VUS result versus a negative result in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27369690What 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.