ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2016
Next-Generation Sequencing and the Return of Results.
Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward a framework for measuring the impact of ELSI research.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Development of a Tagmentation-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Assay as an Alternative to Capillary Electrophoresis-Based Sequencing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem.Neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Parental Access to Children's Raw Genomic Data in Canada: Legal Rights and Professional Responsibility.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Helpful Criteria When Implementing NGS Panels in Childhood Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research.Genome medicine · 2019Review
- Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2019Article
- Overlooked: Extrachromosomal DNA and Their Possible Impact on Whole Genome Sequencing.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2018Review
- Review
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
The impact of next-generation sequencing (NGS) on the issue of return of results is defying clear policy guidance and creating international confusion. Limiting ourselves to the return of results revealed by NGS (including incidental findings) in adults, children, family members of deceased individuals, and population studies, we describe and contrast emerging policy positions in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Until there are clear, scientific, and professional standards and practical policy, both researchers and clinicians cannot be faulted for being either hesitant or pressured to return NGS results.
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.