ArticleMolecular psychiatry2018
Improved ethical guidance for the return of results from psychiatric genomics research.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical issues in genomics research on neurodevelopmental disorders: a critical interpretive review.Human genomics · 2021Review
- Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants.BMC medical genomics · 2021Article
- "It's all about delivery": researchers and health professionals' views on the moral challenges of accessing neurobiological information in the context of psychosis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Swedish large-scale schizophrenia study: Why do patients and healthy controls participate?Schizophrenia research · 2021Article
- Return of results in a global survey of psychiatric genetics researchers: practices, attitudes, and knowledge.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Genetic Risk Assessment in Psychiatry.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Long overdue: including adults with brain disorders in precision health initiatives.Current opinion in genetics & development · 2020Review
- Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Article
- International Society of Psychiatric Genetics Ethics Committee: Issues facing us.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Review
- Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- Exploring neurologists' perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Neuroethics at 15: Keep the Kant but Add More Bacon.AJOB neuroscienceArticle
- Integrating Genomics into Psychiatric Practice: Ethical and Legal Challenges for Clinicians.Harvard review of psychiatryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is an emerging consensus that genomic researchers should, at a minimum, offer to return to individual participants clinically valid, medically important and medically actionable genomic findings (for example, pathogenic variants in BRCA1) identified in the course of research. However, this is not a common practice in psychiatric genetics research. Furthermore, psychiatry researchers often generate findings that do not meet all of these criteria, yet there may be ethically compelling arguments to offer selected results. Here, we review the return of results debate in genomics research and propose that, as for genomic studies of other medical conditions, psychiatric genomics researchers should offer findings that meet the minimum criteria stated above. Additionally, if resources allow, psychiatry researchers could consider offering to return pre-specified 'clinically valuable' findings even if not medically actionable-for instance, findings that help corroborate a psychiatric diagnosis, and findings that indicate important health risks. Similarly, we propose offering 'likely clinically valuable' findings, specifically, variants of uncertain significance potentially related to a participant's symptoms. The goal of this Perspective is to initiate a discussion that can help identify optimal ways of managing the return of results from psychiatric genomics research.
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.