ArticleNature biotechnology2016
The impact of personal genomics on risk perceptions and medical decision-making.
Article in Nature biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Disclosure of Personalized Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk Using Genetics, Biomarkers, and Lifestyle Factors to Motivate Health Behavior Improvements: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Arthritis care & research · 2018Trial
- There is no belief update bias for neutral events: failure to replicate Burton et al. (2022).Journal of cognitive psychology (Hove, England) · 2023Article
- Quantifying the heritability of belief formation.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Impact of polygenic risk communication: an observational mobile application-based coronary artery disease study.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- Direct-to-consumer genomic testing: Are nurses prepared?Nursing · 2020Article
- Reconciling Opportunistic and Population Screening in Clinical Genomics.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2019Review
- An epigenetic master regulator teams up to become an epioncogene.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Optimistic update bias holds firm: Three tests of robustness following Shah et al.Consciousness and cognition · 2017Article
- Personal Genomic Testing for Cancer Risk: Results From the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: User Motivations, Decision Making, and Perceived Utility of Results.Public health genomics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27606453What 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.