Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29848613›Full record

ArticleCirculation. Genomic and precision medicine2018

Ability of Patients to Distinguish Among Cardiac Genomic Variant Subclassifications.

Lydia D Hellwig, Barbara B Biesecker, Katie L Lewis, Leslie G Biesecker, Cynthia A James, William M P Klein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Informed Consent in the Genomics Era.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020
    Review
  6. 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 · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lydia D HellwigNational Human Genome Research Institute (L.D.H.) Lydia.hellwig.ctr@usuhs.edu.
Barbara B BieseckerSocial and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute (B.B.B.).
Katie L LewisMedical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute (K.L.L., L.G.B.).
Leslie G BieseckerMedical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute (K.L.L., L.G.B.).
Cynthia A JamesDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD (C.A.J.).
William M P KleinDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute (W.M.P.K.).

Funding

Genomic Ascertainment - Molecular and Genetic AspectsZIAHG200359 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BIESECKER, LESLIE · 2009 to 2025
$19.7M
Genomic Ascertainment - Clinical and Behavioral AspectsZIAHG200387 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BIESECKER, LESLIE · 2013 to 2025
$15.5M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic VariationPatient ParticipationCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleGenetic TestingGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleSequence Analysis, DNAclassificationgenetic testinggenetic variationintentionuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID29848613
PMCPMC5986092

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.