Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31053786›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019

Trends in BRCA testing and socioeconomic deprivation.

Antony P Martin, Gabriel Pedra, Jennifer Downing, Brendan Collins, Brian Godman, Ana Alfirevic, Munir Pirmohamed, Kathryn Lynn Greenhalgh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Antony P MartinNational Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), Liverpool, UK. apmartin@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4383-6038
Gabriel PedraInstitute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jennifer DowningNational Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), Liverpool, UK.
Brendan CollinsDepartment of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Brian GodmanLiverpool Health Economics, University of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool, UK.
Ana AlfirevicNational Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), Liverpool, UK.
Munir Pirmohamed *National Institute for Health Research, Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, North West Coast (NIHR CLAHRC NWC), Liverpool, UK.
Kathryn Lynn Greenhalgh *Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) CLAHRC NWC 045Medical Research Council MR/L006758/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BRCA testing received much publicity following Angelina Jolie's editorial "My Medical Choice" in May 2013 and updated NICE clinical guidance (CG164) in June 2013. We assessed the effect of these two concurrent events on BRCA testing in one UK catchment area and relate this to socioeconomic deprivation. A database of 1393 patients who received BRCA testing was collated. This included individuals with breast/ovarian cancer, and those unaffected by cancer, where a relative has a ≥10% probability of carrying a BRCA variant which affects function. A segmented regression was conducted to estimate changes in testing. To examine the relative distribution of testing by deprivation, the deprivation status of patients who received testing was examined. Between April 2010 and March 2017, testing increased 11-fold and there was an 84% increase (P = 0.006) in BRCA1/2 testing in the month following both publications. In the pre-publication period, there was no statistically significant difference in testing between advantaged and disadvantaged areas (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99-1.48; P = 0.06). In the post-publication period helped by a larger sample size, the difference was statistically significant (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08-1.29; P = 0.0002) and of a similar magnitude to the pre-publication period. Testing increased following Jolie's editorial and NICE guidance update. However, further research is needed to examine differences in testing by the deprivation group which adjusts for confounders.

Indexed as

Genes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Breast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesFemaleGenetic TestingGeographyGerm-Line MutationHumansOdds RatioOvarian NeoplasmsPopulation SurveillanceSocioeconomic FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID31053786
PMCPMC6777468

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.