Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30837331›Full record

ReviewClinical science (London, England : 1979)2019

Recent developments in genetic/genomic medicine.

Rachel H Horton, Anneke M Lucassen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical science (London, England : 1979), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Personalized Medicine.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel H HortonClinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom r.h.horton@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6080-6354
Anneke M LucassenClinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
University of Southampton · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 208053/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in genetic technology are having a major impact in the clinic, and mean that many perceptions of the role and scope of genetic testing are having to change. Genomic testing brings with it a greater opportunity for diagnosis, or predictions of future diagnoses, but also an increased chance of uncertain or unexpected findings, many of which may have impacts for multiple members of a person's family. In the past, genetic testing was rarely able to provide rapid results, but the increasing speed and availability of genomic testing is changing this, meaning that genomic information is increasingly influencing decisions around patient care in the acute inpatient setting. The landscape of treatment options for genetic conditions is shifting, which has evolving implications for clinical discussions around previously untreatable disorders. Furthermore, the point of access to testing is changing with increasing provision direct to the consumer outside the formal healthcare setting. This review outlines the ways in which genetic medicine is developing in light of technological advances.

Indexed as

AnimalsDiffusion of InnovationGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetics, MedicalGenetic TestingGenetic TherapyGenomicsHumansPharmacogeneticsPhenotypePrecision MedicinePredictive Value of Testsethicsgeneticsgenomics

Identifiers

PMID30837331
PMCPMC6399103
OpenAlexW2919024226

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.