ArticleNPJ genomic medicine2018
Predictors of next-generation sequencing panel selection using a shared decision-making approach.
Article in NPJ genomic medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychological distress and cancer worry in unaffected relatives undergoing cascade testing with multigene panel testing.Journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Patient decisions regarding cancer gene panel testing: An exploratory study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Exploring Stakeholders' Perspectives on Implementing Universal Germline Testing for Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Clinical Practice Survey.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Understanding cancer predisposition in Singapore: What's next.Singapore medical journal · 2023Review
- Pharmacogenes that demonstrate high association evidence according to CPIC, DPWG, and PharmGKB.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Current scenario of the genetic testing for rare neurological disorders exploiting next generation sequencing.Neural regeneration research · 2021Review
- Predictive Testing for Tumor Predisposition Syndromes in Pediatric Relatives: An Asian Experience.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Impact of free cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing on uptake in Singapore.NPJ genomic medicine · 2019Article
- Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Clinical Multigene Panel Testing for Cancer Susceptibility in the Multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone Study.JCO precision oncology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of next-generation sequencing panels has transformed the approach for genetic testing in cancer patients, however, established guidelines for their use are lacking. A shared decision-making approach has been adopted by our service, where patients play an active role in panel selection and we sought to identify factors associated with panel selection and report testing outcomes. Demographic and clinical data were gathered for female breast and/or ovarian cancer patients aged 21 and over who underwent panel testing. Panel type was classified as 'breast cancer panel' (BCP) or 'multi-cancer panel' (MCP). Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify clinical factors most predictive of panel selection. Of the 265 included subjects, the vast majority selected a broader MCP (81.5%). Subjects who chose MCPs were significantly more likely to be ≥50 years of age (49 vs. 31%;
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.