Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29497326›Full record

ArticlePharmacogenomics and personalized medicine2018

Which attributes of whole genome sequencing tests are most important to the general population? Results from a German preference study.

Marika Plöthner, Katharina Schmidt, Clarissa Schips, Kathrin Damm

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Clinical genomic testing: what matters to key stakeholders?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020
    Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marika PlöthnerLeibniz University of Hannover, Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Germany.
Katharina SchmidtLeibniz University of Hannover, Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Germany.
Clarissa SchipsLeibniz University of Hannover, Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Germany.
Kathrin DammLeibniz University of Hannover, Center for Health Economics Research Hannover (CHERH), Germany.
Leibniz University Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify the preferences for whole genome sequencing (WGS) tests without genetic counseling.

methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted where participants chose between two hypothetical alternatives consisting of the following attributes: test accuracy, test costs, identified diseases, probability of disease occurrence, and data access. People from the general German population aged ≥18 years were eligible to participate in the survey. We estimated generalized linear mixed effects models, latent class mixed-logit models, and the marginal willingness to pay.

resultsThree hundred and one participants were included in the final analysis. Overall, the most favored WGS testing attributes were 95% test accuracy, report of severe hereditary diseases and 40% probability of disease development, test costs of €1,000, and access to test results for researchers. Subgroup analysis, however, showed differences in these preferences between males and females. For example, males preferred reporting of results at a 10% probability of disease development and females preferred reporting of results at a 40% probability. The test cost, participant's educational level, and access to data influenced the willingness to participate in WGS testing in reality.

conclusionThe German general population was aware of the importance of genetic research and preferred to provide their own genetic data for researchers. However, among others, the reporting of results with a comparatively relatively low probability of disease development at a level of 40%, and the test accuracy of 95% had a high preference. This shows that the results and consequences of WGS testing without genetic counseling are hard to assess for individuals. Therefore, WGS testing should be supported by qualified genetic counseling, where the attributes and consequences are explained.

Indexed as

discrete choice experimentgenetic testinglatent class modelpreferenceswhole genome sequencingwillingness to pay

Identifiers

PMID29497326
PMCPMC5818841
OpenAlexW2790201999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.