ArticlePersonalized medicine2017
How do providers discuss the results of pediatric exome sequencing with families?
Article in Personalized medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parental perspectives on the use of tumor molecular profiling and germline genetic testing during their children's cancer treatment.Familial cancer · 2025Article
- Engaging adolescents and young adults in decisions about return of genomic research results: study protocol for a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Engaging Adolescents and Young Adults in Decisions About Return of Genomic Research Results: a mixed-methods longitudinal clinical trial protocol.Research square · 2023Article
- Framing the Family: A Qualitative Exploration of Factors That Shape Family-Level Experience of Pediatric Genomic Sequencing.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Informed consent practices for exome sequencing: An interview study with clinical geneticists in the Netherlands.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Paediatric genomic testing: Navigating medicare rebatable genomic testing.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2021Article
- Optimizing genetics online resources for diverse readers.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- Challenges to informed consent for exome sequencing: A best-worst scaling experiment.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019Article
- Article
- Adolescent and Parental Attitudes About Return of Genomic Research Results: Focus Group Findings Regarding Decisional Preferences.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018Article
- A Key Role for the Genetic Counsellor in the Genomics Era.F1000Research · 2018Article
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
aimThis study provides preliminary data on the process and content of returning results from exome sequencing offered to children through one of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) projects. MATERIALS &
methodsWe recorded 25 sessions where providers returned diagnostic and secondary sequencing results to families. Data interpretation utilized inductive thematic analysis.
resultsTypically, providers followed a results report and discussed diagnostic findings using technical genomic and sequencing concepts. We identified four provider processes for returning results: teaching genetic concepts; assessing family response; personalizing findings; and strengthening patient-provider relationships.
conclusionSessions should reflect family interest in medical management and next steps, and minimize detailed genomic concepts. As the scope and complexity of sequencing increase, the traditional information-laden counseling model requires revision.
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.