Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30206354›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genomic testing in cancer: a systematic review.

Tatiane Yanes, Amanda M Willis, Bettina Meiser, Katherine M Tucker, Megan Best

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Family Adjustment to Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Genetic counseling and testing for Asian Americans: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Patient experience of uncertainty in cancer genomics: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. GP perspectives on genomics in primary care: a qualitative study on using polygenic risk scores to evaluate cancer risk.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  11. Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: Health-system leaders and primary care providers weigh in.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Tatiane YanesPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia. t.yanes@student.unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3905-3025
Amanda M WillisPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
Bettina MeiserPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
Katherine M TuckerPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
Megan BestPsycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1570-8872

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genetic testing in oncology are well known, however, it is unclear how these findings will generalize to more complex genomic testing. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing. Studies were selected for inclusion if they were published from January 2003 to January 2017 and addressed psychological and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing in adults. A review of four databases identified 9620 abstracts, with 22 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the included articles, 11 studies reported on outcomes of germline testing, with three articles assessing panel testing and eight SNP testing. No studies assessed the outcomes of WGS or WES. Eleven articles assessed the outcomes of somatic testing, including testing for cancer prognosis and for personalized therapies. Studies were biased toward breast cancer and Caucasian women with high education and socioeconomic status. While studies demonstrated limited adverse psychological outcomes associated with genomic testing, a lack of consistency in psychosocial measures precluded any meta-analysis. Changes in health behavior following positive results were limited, and in some cases risk perception was not altered following genomic testing. There is limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes and changes in health behavior following genomic testing to assess cancer risk. Findings from this review highlight the need for longitudinal research with superior methodological and theoretical design.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingGerm-Line MutationHumansNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30206354
PMCPMC6303287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.