ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2018
Age and perceived risks and benefits of preventive genomic screening.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Older research participants are motivated to receive genetic results for the benefit of younger relatives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Views and experiences regarding workplace genetic testing: findings from a national survey of U.S. employees.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Patient-reported actions following receipt of pathogenic hereditary cancer genetic test results: results from a population-based screening study in primary care.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Exclusion-based exome sequencing in critically ill adults 18-40 years old has a 24% diagnostic rate and finds racial disparities in access to genetic testing.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Predictors of Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Qualified Individuals.Medical research archives · 2025Article
- A Swiss Cross-Sectional Study on Patients' Perspectives on Chronic Pain Management, Analgesic Treatment, and Genetic Susceptibility.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Molecular and immune landscape of tumours in geriatric patients with non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- "Uninsurable because of a genetic test": a qualitative study of consumer views about the use of genetic test results in Australian life insurance.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Workplace genetic testing: which employees are likely to participate, what are their concerns with employer sponsorship, and which design features could reduce barriers and increase participation?Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Employees' Views and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Assessment of Voluntary Workplace Genomic Testing.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Assessing the implications of positive genomic screening results.Personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing Among Participants in the Jackson and Framingham Heart Studies.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.Personalized medicine · 2018Article
- Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAs genome sequencing moves from research to clinical practice, sequencing technologies focused on "medically actionable" targets are being promoted for preventive screening despite the dearth of systematic evidence of risks and benefits and of criteria for selection of screening subjects. This study investigates researchers' and research participants' perceptions of these issues within the context of a preventive genomic screening study, GeneScreen.
methodsWe recorded researcher deliberations regarding age eligibility criteria and the risks and benefits of screening, and conducted interviews with 50 GeneScreen participants about their motivations for joining and their perceptions of risks and benefits.
resultsResearchers made assumptions about who would want and benefit from screening based on age. After discussion, researchers opted not to have an upper age limit for enrollment. Participants of all ages perceived similar benefits, including prevention, treatment, and cascade testing, and similar risks, such as insurance discrimination and worry.
conclusionWhile clinical benefits of preventive genomic screening for older adults are debatable, our respondents perceived a range of benefits of screening in both clinical and research settings. Researchers and clinicians should carefully consider decisions about whether to exclude older adults and whether to provide information about benefits and risks across age groups.
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.