ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2018
Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sharing behavior and health care utilization following direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review.Open research Europe · 2025Pooled it
- Pediatric DTC Genetic Testing for Adult-Onset Inherited Cancer Risk: The Perspectives of High-Risk Parents.Public health genomics · 2025Article
- Genetics healthcare providers' experiences counseling patients with results from consumer genomic testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- A game theoretic approach to balance privacy risks and familial benefits.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Review
- Pharmacogenomics cascade testing (PhaCT): a novel approach for preemptive pharmacogenomics testing to optimize medication therapy.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2021Review
- Identifying rare, medically relevant variation via population-based genomic screening in Alabama: opportunities and pitfalls.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Impacts of personal DNA ancestry testing.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Precision Population Medicine in Primary Care: The Sanford Chip Experience.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- The Need for Education and Clinical Best Practice Guidelines in the Era of Direct-to-Consumer Genomic Testing.JMIR medical education · 2020Article
- A primer in genomics for social and behavioral investigators.Translational behavioral medicine · 2020Article
- Health and kinship matter: Learning about direct-to-consumer genetic testing user experiences via online discussions.PloS one · 2020Article
- Who's on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020Review
- First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Review
- Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools: A Mixed-Methods Study of Consumer Motivation and Behavior.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
- GP attitudes to and expectations for providing personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2019Article
- Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique.PLoS biology · 2018Article
- "Bridge to the Literature"? Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Consumer use and response to online third-party raw DNA interpretation services.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the availability of raw DNA generated from direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing companies, there has been a proliferation of third-party online services that are available to interpret the raw data for both genealogy and/or health purposes. This study examines the current landscape and downstream clinical implications of consumer use of third-party services.
methodsStudy participants were recruited online from social media platforms. A total of 321 survey respondents reported using third-party services for raw DNA interpretation.
resultsParticipants were highly motivated to explore raw DNA for ancestral information (67%), individual health implications (62%), or both (40%). Participants primarily used one of seven companies to interpret raw DNA; 73% used more than one. Company choice was driven by the type of results offered (51%), price (45%), and online reviews (31%). Approximately 30% of participants shared results with a medical provider and 21% shared with more than one. Outcomes of sharing ranged from disinterest/discounting of the information to diagnosis of genetic conditions. Participants were highly satisfied with their decision to analyze raw DNA (M = 4.54/5), yet challenges in understanding interpretation results were reported irrespective of satisfaction ratings.
conclusionConsumers face challenges in understanding the results and may seek out clinical assistance in interpreting their raw DNA results.
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.