Trial reportJournal of genetic counseling2017
Motivation, Perception, and Treatment Beliefs in the Myocardial Infarction Genes (MI-GENES) Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of genetic counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of disclosing a polygenic risk score for coronary heart disease on adverse cardiovascular events: 10-year follow-up of the MI-GENES randomized clinical trial.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Simplified rules-based tool to facilitate the application of up-to-date management recommendations in cardio-oncology.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Little is known about individuals' motivation, perception, and treatment beliefs towards the use of genetic information in risk estimates for coronary heart disease (CHD). In this study, participants at intermediate 10-year risk of CHD were randomized to receive either their estimated conventional risk score (CRS) alone, or a CRS and a genetic risk score (GRS), by a genetic counselor. Surveys on motivation to participate in and perception of genetic testing for CHD were administered at 3 months and treatment beliefs at 6 months following risk disclosure. Survey responses used Likert scales. Linear and logistic regression were used for analysis. Overall, motivation to participate in genomic clinical trials was favorable and did not differ between the CRS and GRS groups (16.95 ± 0.82 vs. 17.58 ± 0.83, p = 0.091), but participants who initially received their GRS indicated a greater desire to find ways to improve health as a reason for participation (OR: 0.53 (95%CI: 0.29, 0.94), p = 0.028). Perception of genetic testing was also favorable in both groups (15.29 ± 0.39 vs. 15.12 ± 0.40, p = 0.835). Participants who initially received their GRS were more inclined to recommend genetic testing to family and friends (9.95 ± 1.88 vs. 10.52 ± 2.17, p = 0.023). In the MI-GENES study, motivation to participate in and perception of genetic testing among study participants were overall favorable. Genetic risk disclosure was associated with increased motivation to recommend genetic testing to family and friends.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28386791What 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.