ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2018
Shared decision making: Implications for return of results from whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- "I think that a brief conversation from their provider can go a very long way": Patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators of genetic testing after ovarian cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Renal genetics in Australia: Kidney medicine in the genomic age.Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2019Review
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Clinical and Public Health Genomics: Opportunities for translational behavioral medicine research, practice, and policy.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this issue, Kaphingst and colleagues report on young breast cancer patient's preferences for learning about various results from genomic sequencing. In our commentary, we discuss the results in light of the burgeoning clinical use of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS). In particular, we consider findings in the context of a Shared Decision Making approach to return of results. We also identify additional important factors to consider that may influence patient preferences that were largely absent from the paper by Kaphingst and colleagues, including cultural context, costs of testing, and provider factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29385585What 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.