Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30171820›Full record

ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2018

Ethical and counseling challenges in prenatal exome sequencing.

Sarah Harris, Kelly Gilmore, Emily Hardisty, Anne Drapkin Lyerly, Neeta L Vora

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah HarrisUniversity of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0001-6885-4609
Kelly GilmoreDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Emily HardistyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Anne Drapkin LyerlyDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Neeta L VoraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-2504-9455
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

UNC BIRCWH CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMK12HD001441 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BOGGESS, KIM A · 2000 to 2019
$9.3M
Early Genomic DiagnosisK23HD088742 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI VORA, NEETA L · 2017 to 2020
$685k
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001441NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD088742
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEthical and counseling challenges are expected with the introduction of prenatal whole exome sequencing. In this study, we describe specific challenges identified through the UNC-Chapel Hill Prenatal Exome Sequencing Study.

methodsParticipants were a subset of women participating in the fetal exome study, which has enrolled 73 mother-father-fetus trios in pregnancies diagnosed with structural anomalies and normal standard genetic testing results. In this descriptive study, cases were reviewed by members of the research team, including a bioethicist, to identify counseling challenges. Illustrative cases were chosen by group consensus.

resultsFour illustrative cases were identified for further analysis. Challenges included need for adequate counseling and informed consent, challenges in prenatal variant interpretation, performing prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies, inability to identify a genetic etiology, and identifying parental secondary findings.

conclusionOur study illustrates several challenges identified in an ongoing prenatal exome study. While genomic medicine is a powerful tool for prenatal diagnosis, it is important that clinicians understand the ethical implications and parental perceptions of this testing modality.

Indexed as

AdultCongenital AbnormalitiesCounselingExome SequencingFemaleGenetic CounselingHumansInformed ConsentMaleParentsPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisUltrasonography, Prenatal

Identifiers

PMID30171820
PMCPMC6370459
OpenAlexW2889363007

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.