Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28140662›Full record

ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2017

Pediatric Issues in Return of Results and Incidental Findings: Weighing Autonomy and Best Interests.

Ingrid A Holm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Ingrid A Holm1 Division of Genetics and Genomics, Boston Children's Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Disclosing Genomic Incidental Findings in a Cancer Biobank: An ELSI ExperimentR01CA154517 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KOENIG, BARBARA A., PETERSEN, GLORIA M. · 2011 to 2015
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowhere are the ethical issues in genomic research more complex than in pediatrics. Balancing the sometime conflicting autonomy of the parent and the child, and the best interest of the family and the child, brings up many challenging issues. Addressing this balance, especially in the context of the child's developing maturity and comprehension, requires deep analysis and discussion. Issues discussed include the impact of genetic information on the family, parental versus the child's autonomy, the best interests of the child versus the family, potential limitations on the parents' right to know or not know information about their child, and changing role of the developing child in return of research results. Finally, a dynamic model will be proposed that takes into consideration the child's evolving role in consenting and return of results that can be adapted in different national contexts.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesModels, TheoreticalAdolescentBiological Specimen BanksChildChild, PreschoolConfidentialityFemaleHumansMaleconsentethicspediatricsreturn of genomic results

Identifiers

PMID28140662
PMCPMC5367908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.