Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27699200›Full record

ArticleEthics, medicine, and public health

Informed decision-making about prenatal cfDNA screening: An assessment of written materials.

Marsha Michie, Stephanie A Kraft, Mollie A Minear, Roberta R Ryan, Megan A Allyse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics, medicine, and public health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. The Function of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Request Forms in the Australian Context.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Disparities in access to reproductive genetic services associated with geographic location of residence and maternal race and ethnicity.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Marsha MichieInstitute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco.
Stephanie A KraftStanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University.
Mollie A MinearScience and Society, Duke University.
Roberta R RyanInstitute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco.
Megan A AllyseBiomedical Ethics Program, Mayo Clinic.
Duke University · USInstitute on Aging · USStanford University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USWinnMed · US

Funding

The Management and Organization Core will be administered by the Center for GenomP50HG003391 · NHGRI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI COOK-DEEGAN, ROBERT MULLAN · 2004 to 2014
$9.9M
Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and EthicsP50HG003389 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHO, MILDRED K. · 2004 to 2014
$9.9M
Mapping an ELSI-integrated translational pathway with cell-free fetal DNA testingR00HG006452 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MICHIE, MARSHA MABRY · 2014 to 2016
$747k
NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG003389NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG003391NHGRI NIH HHS R00 HG006452United States NHGRI
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe introduction of prenatal cfDNA screening for fetal aneuploidy and other genetic conditions has exacerbated concerns about informed decision-making in clinical prenatal testing. To assess the information provided to patients to facilitate decisions about cfDNA screening, we collected written patient education and consent documents created by laboratories and clinics.

methodsInformed consent documents (IC) were coded by two independent coders. Each IC was assessed for readability, attention to elements of informed consent, and completeness of information about the test and the screened conditions.

resultsWe found variance between IC produced by commercial laboratories versus those provided by local clinics or health care systems, and considerable variance among materials from all sources. "Commercial" IC were longer and written at a more difficult reading level than "non-commercial" IC, and were less likely to state explicitly that cfDNA only screens for certain conditions. About one-third of IC were combined with laboratory order forms. Though most IC recommended confirmatory testing for positive results, only about half clearly stated that results could be incorrect-including mentions of false positives or false negatives. About one-third of IC explicitly stated that cfDNA screening was optional. While nearly all IC from any source listed the conditions screened by the test, only about half of the IC included any phenotypic descriptions of these conditions. Few IC mentioned psychosocial considerations, and only one IC mentioned the availability of support groups for families of children with genetic conditions.

conclusionsBased on our findings, we recommend that written and well-informed consent be sought before performing cfDNA screening, and we offer minimal and recommended standards for patient education and consent materials.

Indexed as

cfDNAconsentement éclairédépistage prénatalinformed consentNIPTprenatal screeningreproductive healthsanté de la reproduction

Identifiers

PMID27699200
PMCPMC5044756
OpenAlexW2520043183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.