ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019
Continental drift? Do European clinical genetic testing laboratories have a patent problem?
Article 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Measures for Individuals Who Underwent Genetic Testing for Heritable Cancer.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Genetic and Genomic Testing in Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Mapping the patent landscape of cancer diagnostics.Nature biotechnology · 2025Article
- Human Pangenomics: Promises and Challenges of a Distributed Genomic Reference.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Regulatory Landscape of New Health Technologies and Nanotechnologies: The Role of Complexity of Nanosystems.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- European Patent Office grants controversial patent protecting virus: lessons from the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak.Nature biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Recent US Supreme Court decisions have invalidated patent claims on isolated genomic DNA, and testing methods that applied medical correlations using conventional techniques. As a consequence, US genetic testing laboratories have a relatively low risk of infringing patents on naturally occurring DNA or methods for detecting genomic variants. In Europe, however, such claims remain patentable, and European laboratories risk infringing them. We report the results from a survey that collected data on the impact of patents on European genetic testing laboratories. The results indicate that the proportion of European laboratories that have refrained from providing associated testing services owing to patent protection has increased over the last decade (up from 7% in 2008 to 15% in 2017), and that the non-profit sector was particularly strongly affected (up from 4% in 2008 to 14% in 2017). We renew calls for more readily available legal support to help public sector laboratories deal with patent issues, but we do not recommend aligning European law with US law at present. Watchful monitoring is also recommended to ensure that patents do not become a greater hindrance for clinical genetic testing laboratories.
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.