ArticleCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine2018
Ability of Patients to Distinguish Among Cardiac Genomic Variant Subclassifications.
Article in Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of uncertainties about carrier results identified by exome sequencing in a randomized controlled trial.Translational behavioral medicine · 2020Trial
- Managing the Uncertainty of "Precision" While Navigating Goals of Care: A Framework for Collaborative Interpretation of Complex Genomic Testing Results in Critically-Ill Neonates.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Performance of a Protein Language Model for Variant Annotation in Cardiac Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Changes in genetic variant results over time in pediatric cardiomyopathy and electrophysiology.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Informed Consent in the Genomics Era.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Large next-generation sequencing gene panels in genetic heart disease: challenges in clinical practice.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2019Article
- Variants of Uncertain Significance: Should We Revisit How They Are Evaluated and Disclosed?Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical genetic testing for heritable cardiovascular disease has become a widely used tool to aid in the management of patients and their families. A 5-category variant classification system is commonly used for genetic test results, but some laboratories further subclassify variants of uncertain significance. How and whether patients perceive differences among the variant categories or subclassifications of variants of uncertain significance is unknown.
methodsWe tested whether participants perceived differences in genetic variant subclassifications on outcomes including risk comprehension, risk perception, worry, perceived uncertainty, and intentions. Order-randomized hypothetical cardiovascular genetic results were given to 289 participants enrolled in a genome sequencing study. Three categories of variants were presented to participants: variants of uncertain significance, possibly pathogenic, and likely pathogenic. Responses to the first variant presented were analyzed in a between-groups analysis, and responses to all 3 variants were analyzed in a within-groups analysis.
resultsWhen presented with all 3 results, participants distinguished among the subclassifications on all outcomes (
conclusionsParticipants are better able to distinguish pathogenicity subclassifications when presented with multiple categories. Individuals who receive a single uncertain result in a cardiovascular disease gene may benefit from interventions to decrease worry, calibrate risk perceptions, and motivate variant-appropriate behaviors.
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.