ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2018
Reactions to clinical reinterpretation of a gene variant by participants in a sequencing study.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Psychosocial Impact of Receiving Whole Genome and Whole Exome Sequencing Results in Adults: A Systematic Review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Pooled it
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing.Journal of medical genetics · 2024Article
- The Need to Standardize the Reanalysis of Genomic Sequencing Results: Findings from Interviews with Underserved Families in Genomic Research.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Variant reclassification and recontact research: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Exploring the impact of the reclassification of a hereditary cancer syndrome gene variant: emerging themes from a qualitative study.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.Personalized medicine · 2021Review
- A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.Translational behavioral medicine · 2020Article
- How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- Increased diagnostic yield by reanalysis of data from a hearing loss gene panel.BMC medical genomics · 2019Article
- The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
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
PurposeAs genome science advances, people receiving personalized genetic information may receive reinterpretations of pathogenicity. Little is known about responses to adjusted results. We examined how reinterpretations might affect attitudes about genetic testing and intentions to share results with family.MethodsData were collected from high-socioeconomic-status participants (n = 58) in a genome sequencing study. Twenty-nine originally learned they were carriers of Duarte variant galactosemia, based on a variant that was reclassified as benign. Positive testers (n = 19) had a newly identified causative variant and remained carriers. Negative testers (n = 10) learned they were no longer carriers. Twenty-nine controls were carriers for a disease of comparable severity with no reclassification. Participants completed baseline, immediate, and 3-month follow-up surveys.ResultsApproximately 80% of participants demonstrated complete or partially accurate recall of their results and reported positive or neutral reactions to their result and about genetic information more generally. Positive testers reported lower intentions to share the change in their result with family. Controls reported the lowest intentions to learn future results. There were no significant group differences or changes over time in perceived ambiguity or negative emotions.ConclusionThe results suggest that high-socioeconomic-status participants understand reinterpretations conferring a neutral change or a change from carrier to noncarrier status. Participants' responses to changes in carrier results for a low-risk condition indicated minimal adverse effects.
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.