Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29321671›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018

Preconception carrier screening for multiple disorders: evaluation of a screening offer in a Dutch founder population.

Inge B Mathijssen, Kim C A Holtkamp, Cecile P E Ottenheim, Janneke M C van Eeten-Nijman, Phillis Lakeman, Hanne Meijers-Heijboer, Merel C van Maarle, Lidewij Henneman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multilevel barriers and facilitators to widespread use of preconception carrier screening in the United States.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The evolving role of genetic tests in reproductive medicine.Journal of translational medicine · 2019
    Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Inge B MathijssenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. i.b.mathijssen@amc.uva.nl.
Kim C A HoltkampDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cecile P E OttenheimDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Janneke M C van Eeten-NijmanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Phillis LakemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanne Meijers-HeijboerDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Merel C van MaarleDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Academic Medical Center · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technological developments have enabled carrier screening for multiple disorders. This study evaluated experiences with a preconception carrier screening offer for four recessive disorders in a Dutch founder population. Questionnaires were completed by 182 attendees pretesting and posttesting and by 137 non-attendees. Semistructured interviews were conducted with seven of the eight carrier couples. Attendees were mainly informed about the existence of screening by friends/colleagues (49%) and family members (44%). Familiarity with the genetic disorders was high. Knowledge after counseling increased (p < 0.001); however, still 9%, compared to 29% before counseling, wrongly mentioned an increased risk of having an affected child if both parents are carriers of different disorders. Most attendees (97%) recalled their test results correctly, but two couples reported being carrier of another disorder than reported. Overall, 63% felt worried while waiting for results but anxiety levels returned to normal afterwards. In all, 2/39 (5%) carriers felt less healthy. Screened individuals were very satisfied; they did not regret testing (97%) and would recommend testing to others (97%). The majority (94%) stated that couples should always have a pretest consultation, preferably by a genetic counselor rather than their general practitioner (83%). All carrier couples made reproductive decisions based on their results. Main reason for non-attendance was unawareness of the screening offer. With expanded carrier screening, adequately informing couples pretest and posttesting is of foremost importance. Close influencers (family/friends) can be used to raise awareness of a screening offer. Our findings provide lessons for the implementation of expanded carrier screening panels in other communities and other settings.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHeterozygotePreconception CareAdultAwarenessFemaleFounder EffectGenetic CounselingHumansMalePopulation

Identifiers

PMID29321671
PMCPMC5838981
OpenAlexW2783542392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.