ReviewCancers2018
Population Based Testing for Primary Prevention: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of specific and recurrent/founder pathogenic variants in BRCA genes in breast and ovarian cancer in North Africa.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- From Biomarker Discovery to Targeted Clinical Application: Addressing Translational Gaps in Early Cancer Detection.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Survivors' Responses to an Online Intervention to Promote Discussions of Cancer Genetic Risk with Blood Relatives.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Are Broadened Guidelines Improving our Detection of Pathologic Genetic Mutations in Breast Cancer Patients? A 5-Year Comparative Analysis of American Society of Breast Surgeons and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in Canada.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Underpinnings of the Halachic Approach to BRCA Screening and Intervention: Facilitating Provider Counseling for Observant Jewish Populations.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2024Review
- Article
- Exome Sequencing Reveals Novel Germline Variants in Breast Cancer Patients in the Southernmost Region of Thailand.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Population-based genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes: quo vadis?BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023Article
- Article
- Interest in genetic testing and risk-reducing behavioral changes: results from a community health assessment in New York City.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Genetic risk factors have a substantial impact on healthy life years.Nature medicine · 2022Article
- Perceptions and care Recommendations from Previvors: Qualitative analysis of female BRCA1/2 mutation Carriers' experience with genetic testing and counseling.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2022Article
- Unselected Population Genetic Testing for Personalised Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction: A Qualitative Study Using Semi-Structured Interviews.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Therapeutic implications of germline vulnerabilities in DNA repair for precision oncology.Cancer treatment reviews · 2022Review
- Precise, Genotype-First Breast Cancer Prevention: Experience With Transferring Monogenic Findings From a Population Biobank to the Clinical Setting.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Population or family history based BRCA gene tests of breast cancer? A systematic review of economic evaluations.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2021Review
- An Overview of PARP Inhibitors for the Treatment of Breast Cancer.Targeted oncology · 2021Review
- Uptake of Family-Specific Mutation Genetic Testing Among Relatives of Patients with Ovarian Cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation.Cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The current clinical model for genetic testing is based on clinical-criteria/family-history (FH) and a pre-defined mutation probability threshold. It requires people to develop cancer before identifying unaffected individuals in the family to target prevention. This process is inefficient, resource intensive and misses >50% of individuals or mutation carriers at risk. Population genetic-testing can overcome these limitations. It is technically feasible to test populations on a large scale; genetic-testing costs are falling and acceptability and awareness are rising. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases were searched using free-text and MeSH terms; retrieved reference lists of publications were screened; additionally, web-based platforms, Google, and clinical-trial registries were searched. Quality of studies was evaluated using appropriate check-lists. A number of studies have evaluated population-based
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.