Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28771245›Full record

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.

Jennifer M Taber, William M P Klein, Katie L Lewis, Jennifer J Johnston, Leslie G Biesecker, Barbara B Biesecker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.Translational behavioral medicine · 2020
    Article
  9. 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 · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Jennifer M TaberDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA.
William M P KleinBehavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Katie L LewisNational Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jennifer J JohnstonNational Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Leslie G BieseckerNational Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Barbara B BieseckerNational Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Genomic Ascertainment - Molecular and Genetic AspectsZIAHG200359 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BIESECKER, LESLIE · 2009 to 2025
$19.7M
Genomic Ascertainment - Clinical and Behavioral AspectsZIAHG200387 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BIESECKER, LESLIE · 2013 to 2025
$15.5M
Interventions in Genetic CounselingZIAHG200317 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BIESECKER, BARBARA BOWLES · 2009 to 2018
$7.6M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA HG200359Intramural NIH HHS ZIA HG200387
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic Association StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingGenetic VariationPatient ParticipationCase-Control StudiesData AccuracyEmotionsFollow-Up StudiesGenetic CounselingHumansIntentionPerceptionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28771245
PMCPMC6611163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.