Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28286745›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2017

Outcomes of an International Workshop on Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: Some Considerations for Governments.

Caron M Molster, Karla Lister, Selina Metternick-Jones, Gareth Baynam, Angus John Clarke, Volker Straub, Hugh J S Dawkins, Nigel Laing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Population genomic screening of all young adults in a health-care system: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Review
  17. 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

8 authors.

Caron M MolsterOffice of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia , Perth, WA , Australia.
Karla ListerOffice of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia , Perth, WA , Australia.
Selina Metternick-JonesSir Charles Gairdner Hospital , Perth, WA , Australia.
Gareth BaynamOffice of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Genetic Services WA, Perth, WA, Australia; School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Institute for Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia; Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies, Perth, WA, Australia; Spatial Sciences, Department of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Angus John ClarkeDivision of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff , UK.
Volker StraubInstitute of Human Genetics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK.
Hugh J S DawkinsOffice of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia; Centre for Population Health Research, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia; School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Nigel LaingCentre for Medical Research, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Neurogenetics Unit, Department of Diagnostic Genomics, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsideration of expanded carrier screening has become an emerging issue for governments. However, traditional criteria for decision-making regarding screening programs do not incorporate all the issues relevant to expanded carrier screening. Further, there is a lack of consistent guidance in the literature regarding the development of appropriate criteria for government assessment of expanded carrier screening. Given this, a workshop was held to identify key public policy issues related to preconception expanded carrier screening, which governments should consider when deciding whether to publicly fund such programs.

methodsIn June 2015, a satellite workshop was held at the European Society of Human Genetics Conference. It was structured around two design features: (1) the provision of information from a range of perspectives and (2) small group deliberations on the key issues that governments need to consider and the benefits, risks, and challenges of implementing publicly funded whole-population preconception carrier screening.

resultsForty-one international experts attended the workshop. The deliberations centered primarily on the conditions to be tested and the elements of the screening program itself. Participants expected only severe conditions to be screened but were concerned about the lack of a consensus definition of "severe." Issues raised regarding the screening program included the purpose, benefits, harms, target population, program acceptability, components of a program, and economic evaluation. Participants also made arguments for consideration of the accuracy of screening tests.

conclusionA wide range of issues require careful consideration by governments that want to assess expanded carrier screening. Traditional criteria for government decision-making regarding screening programs are not a "best fit" for expanded carrier screening and new models of decision-making with appropriate criteria are required. There is a need to define what a "severe" condition is, to build evidence regarding the reliability and accuracy of screening tests, to consider the equitable availability and downstream effects on and costs of follow-up interventions for those identified as carriers, and to explore the ways in which the components of a screening program would be impacted by unique features of expanded carrier screening.

Indexed as

carrier screeningexpanded carrier screeninggenetic carrier screeninggovernmentpublic policy

Identifiers

PMID28286745
PMCPMC5323409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.