ArticlePublic health genomics2016
Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine.
Article in Public health genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patients' perspectives related to ethical issues and risks in precision medicine: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.Personalized medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe practice of biorepository-based genetics research raises questions related to what ethical obligations researchers have to their participants. It is important to explore and include the thoughts of current biorepository participants as we move forward with this type of research.
methodsThirty participants (17 cancer patients, 7 cancer-free controls, and 6 relatives) were drawn from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and participated in qualitative interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min. Topics explored in this study include which types of genetic test results participants of large biorepositories expect and would like to receive from research analyzing their samples, as well as thoughts on best practice for conducting this type of research.
resultsCancer cases, controls, and first-degree relatives have differing views on what results they would like to receive from biorepository-based research. Participants across all groups attempted to balance the costs and benefits of returning individual research results. DISCUSSION: In the wake of precision medicine, it is important to describe the range of ways participants in large biorepositories both think and talk about the utilization of their specimens for genetics research.
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.