ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics2018
Analysis of state laws on informed consent for clinical genetic testing in the era of genomic sequencing.
Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinguishing social and medical traits: perspectives of scientists using polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Genetic and Genomic Testing in Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Practice Recommendations for Genetic Testing of Ataxias.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Review
- A proposal for an inclusive working definition of genetic discrimination to promote a more coherent debate.Nature genetics · 2024Review
- Assessment of the current status of real-world pharmacogenomic testing: informed consent, patient education, and related practices.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- The Legal Uncertainties of Sociogenomic Polygenic Scores.Harvard journal of law & technology · 2024Article
- The Intersection between Pharmacogenomics and Health Equity: A Case Example.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Genetic Counseling Considerations for Military Beneficiaries.Military medicine · 2021Review
- Informed Consent in the Genomics Era.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- Consent for the Pelvic Examination Under Anesthesia by Medical Students: Recommendations by the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Article
- Privacy in the age of medical big data.Nature medicine · 2019Review
- Genetic counselors on the frontline of precision health.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article assesses the adequacy of informed consent to clinical genetic testing laws based on an examination of 15 states with institutions that had been involved in a National Institutes of Health-supported Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium project. We identified relevant statutory provisions through a legal search engine and included statutes that describe the informed consent requirements for clinical genetic testing and/or the protections for genetic material, information, or data. We found that statutory definitions were often limited in problematic ways, such as focusing only on variants known to be associated with disease or negative health effects or associated with asymptomatic disease. Some statutes required complex levels of detail if applied to genomic technologies and set confusing disclosure standards for current use and future access. Others had exceptions from informed consent requirements for future research use, limited requirements for the destruction of specimens as opposed to derived data, or linked key definitional components to the evolving concept of "identifiability." Further reform and research are needed to ensure that state law protections advance as rapidly as the science they aspire to enable.
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.