Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29749861›Full record

ArticlePersonalized medicine2017

Portero versus portador: Spanish interpretation of genomic terminology during whole exome sequencing results disclosure.

Amanda M Gutierrez, Jill O Robinson, Emily E Statham, Sarah Scollon, Katie L Bergstrom, Melody J Slashinski, Donald W Parsons, Sharon E Plon, Amy L McGuire, Richard L Street

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Personalized medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Amanda M GutierrezCenter for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Jill O RobinsonCenter for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Emily E StathamCenter for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Sarah ScollonDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Katie L BergstromDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Melody J SlashinskiSchool of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.
Donald W ParsonsDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Sharon E PlonDepartment of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Amy L McGuireCenter for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Richard L StreetDepartment of Communication, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.

Funding

Measuring Perceptions of Utility of Clinical Genome Sequencing: Instrument Testing and ValidationU01HG006485 · NHGRI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI MCGUIRE, AMY L, PARSONS, DONALD W. · 2012 to 2021
$22.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimDescribe modifications to technical genomic terminology made by interpreters during disclosure of whole exome sequencing (WES) results. PATIENTS &

methodsUsing discourse analysis, we identified and categorized interpretations of genomic terminology in 42 disclosure sessions where Spanish-speaking parents received their child's WES results either from a clinician using a medical interpreter, or directly from a bilingual physician.

resultsOverall, 76% of genomic terms were interpreted accordantly, 11% were misinterpreted and 13% were omitted. Misinterpretations made by interpreters and bilingual physicians included using literal and nonmedical terminology to interpret genomic concepts.

conclusionModifications to genomic terminology made during interpretation highlight the need to standardize bilingual genomic lexicons. We recommend Spanish terms that can be used to refer to genomic concepts.

Indexed as

Exome SequencingGenomicsProfessional-Family RelationsTerminology as TopicTruth DisclosureChildFemaleGenetic CounselingHispanic or LatinoHumansMaleMultilingualismNeoplasmsTexasTranslatingcommunication barriersgenomicsgenomic terminologyinterpretation accuracymedical interpretersSpanish-speakers

Identifiers

PMID29749861
PMCPMC6393936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.