ArticlePediatrics2017
Genomic Contraindications for Heart Transplantation.
Article in Pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging and its Impact on the Rare Disease Community: Threats, Challenges and Opportunities.PET clinics · 2022Review
- Aetiology and 30-Year Long-Term Outcome of Children with Cardiomyopathy Necessitating Heart Transplantation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Use of genetic risks in pediatric organ transplantation listing decisions: A national survey.Pediatric transplantation · 2019Article
- Variations in Criteria and Practices for Heart Transplantation Listing Among Pediatric Transplant Cardiologists.Pediatric cardiology · 2019Article
- Anticipating uncertainty and irrevocable decisions: provider perspectives on implementing whole-genome sequencing in critically ill children with heart disease.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genome sequencing raises new ethical challenges. Decoding the genome produces new forms of diagnostic and prognostic information; however, the information is often difficult to interpret. The connection between most genetic variants and their phenotypic manifestations is not understood. This scenario is particularly true for disorders that are not associated with an autosomal genetic variant. The analytic uncertainty is compounded by moral uncertainty about how, exactly, the results of genomic testing should influence clinical decisions. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case in which genomic findings seemed to play a role in deciding whether a patient was to be listed as a transplant candidate. We then asked experts in bioethics and cardiology to discuss the implications of such decisions.
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.