Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30415494›Full record

ReviewMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2019

Return of secondary findings in genomic sequencing: Military implications.

Lydia D Hellwig, Clesson Turner, Teri A Manolio, Mark Haigney, Cynthia A James, Brittney Murray, Dale F Szpisjak, Sheila Muldoon, Juvianee Estrada-Veras, Alyson Krokosky and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2019. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Airmen and health-care providers' attitudes toward the use of genomic sequencing in the US Air Force: findings from the MilSeq Project.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Article
  4. Educating military primary health-care providers in genomic medicine: lessons learned from the MilSeq Project.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Genetic testing strategies in the newborn.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2020
    Review
  7. 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

11 authors.

Lydia D HellwigThe Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc, Bethesda, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-0592-3552
Clesson TurnerWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Teri A ManolioUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Mark HaigneyWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Cynthia A JamesDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Brittney MurrayDivision of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Dale F SzpisjakDepartment of Anesthesiology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sheila MuldoonDepartment of Anesthesiology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Juvianee Estrada-VerasThe Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc, Bethesda, Maryland.
Alyson KrokoskyWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Mauricio J De Castro81st Medical Group, Air Force Medical Genetics Center, Biloxi, Mississippi.ORCID 0000-0003-2004-904X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic sequencing has become a widely used tool in clinical and research settings in both civilian and military healthcare systems.

methodsIn this paper, we consider potential military-specific implications of returning genomic sequencing secondary findings to ensure the proper protections, policies, and processes are in place for the use of this information.

resultsWe specifically use two examples to highlight potential military implications of the return of secondary findings.

conclusionClinicians and researchers are strongly encouraged to consider the military implications of the return of results for informed consent of service members or their families undergoing clinical or research genomic sequencing.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsMilitary PersonnelArrhythmogenic Right Ventricular DysplasiaGenetic Carrier ScreeningGenetic CounselingHumansInformed ConsentMalignant HyperthermiaMilitary MedicineWhole Genome Sequencinggenomicsmilitarysecondary findings

Identifiers

PMID30415494
PMCPMC6393684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.