ArticleThe Hastings Center report2018
Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communicating incidental and reportable findings from research MRIs: considering factors beyond the findings in an underrepresented pediatric population.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- Perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- 'Research ethics · 2024Article
- Views of adults living with sickle cell disease on the theoretical return of secondary genomic findings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Clinically actionable secondary findings in 130 triads from sub-Saharan African families with non-syndromic orofacial clefts.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2023Article
- Return of Results in Genomic Research Using Large-Scale or Whole Genome Sequencing: Toward a New Normal.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2023Review
- When Not to Ask: A Defense of Choice-Masking Nudges in Medical Research.Journal of health care law & policy · 2022Article
- Emerging ethical issues raised by highly portable MRI research in remote and resource-limited international settings.NeuroImage · 2021Article
- Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants.Public health genomics · 2021Article
- Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Ubuntu philosophy and the consensus regarding incidental findings in genomic research: a heuristic approach.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Why genomics researchers are sometimes morally required to hunt for secondary findings.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Research Participants' Attitudes towards Receiving Information on Genetic Susceptibility to Arsenic Toxicity in Rural Bangladesh.Public health genomics · 2020Article
- How to use relevant data for maximal benefit with minimal risk: digital health data governance to protect vulnerable populations in low-income and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Much new global genetic research employs whole genome sequencing, which provides researchers with large amounts of data. The quantity of data has led to the generation and discovery of more incidental or secondary findings and to vigorous theoretical discussions about the ethical obligations that follow from these incidental findings. After a decade of debate in the genetic research community, there is a growing consensus that researchers should, at the very least, offer to return incidental findings that provide high-impact, medically relevant information, when it is not unduly burdensome to the research enterprise to do so. Much as genetic research has been limited to U.S. and European settings, the incidental findings debate has primarily focused on research conducted in high-income countries. In a 2015 paper, Alberto Ortiz-Osorno, Linda Ehler, and Judith Brooks note salient differences between the circumstances of research participants in low- and high-resource settings that alter the analysis of when and why incidental findings should be offered to research participants. In this article, we expand on their analysis and present a framework for thinking about how investigators' obligations to return genomic data might change in low-resource settings, particularly in settings where participants do not have access to the medical care needed to treat, assess, or monitor incidental findings that are actionable in settings with plentiful resources.
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.