Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29325614›Full record

ReviewHandbook of clinical neurology2018

Ethical issues in neurogenetics.

Wendy R Uhlmann, J Scott Roberts

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Handbook of clinical neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Practice Recommendations for Genetic Testing of Ataxias.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025
    Review
  2. Ethical considerations of disclosure of iatrogenic cerebral amyloid angiopathy.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wendy R UhlmannDepartments of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States; Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. Electronic address: wuhlmann@umich.edu.
J Scott RobertsDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, United States; Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Core CenterP30AG053760 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ALBIN, ROGER L · 2016 to 2020
$10.1M
Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer's Disease (REVEAL IV)R01HG002213 · NHGRI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI GREEN, ROBERT C. · 1999 to 2012
$7.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002213NIA NIH HHS P30 AG053760
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many neurogenetic conditions are inherited and therefore diagnosis of a patient will have implications for the patient's relatives and can raise ethical issues. Predictive genetic testing offers asymptomatic relatives the opportunity to determine their risk status for a neurogenetic condition, and professional guidelines emphasize patients' autonomy and informed, voluntary decision making. Beneficence and nonmaleficence both need to be considered when making decisions about disclosure and nondisclosure of genetic information and test results. There can be disclosure concerns and challenges in determining whose autonomy to prioritize when a patient makes a genetic testing decision that can reveal the genetic status of a relative (e.g., testing an adult child when the at-risk parent has not been tested). Ethical issues are prominent when genetic testing for neurogenetic conditions is requested prenatally, on minors, adoptees, adult children at 25% risk, and for individuals with psychiatric issues or cognitive impairment. Neurogenetic conditions can result in cognitive decline which can affect decisional capacity and lead to ethical challenges with decision making, informed consent, and determining the patient's ability to comprehend test results. The ethical implications of genetic testing and emerging issues, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, disclosure of secondary findings from genomic sequencing, and use of apolipoprotein E testing in clinical and research settings, are also discussed. Resources for information about genetic testing practice guidelines, insurance laws, and directories of genetics clinics are included.

Indexed as

Central Nervous System DiseasesEthics, MedicalCognition DisordersGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansautonomycognitive impairmentdecisional capacitydirect-to-consumer (DTC)ethical issuesgenetic testingincidental findingsneurogenetic conditionspredictive testingsecondary findingstesting children

Identifiers

PMID29325614
PMCPMC5896012
OpenAlexW2783552762

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.