ReviewGenome medicine2019
Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research.
Review in Genome medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Epigenome-wide meta-analysis of blood DNA methylation in newborns and children identifies numerous loci related to gestational age.Genome medicine · 2020Pooled it
- EpiATLAS - a reference for human epigenomic research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Article
- "Holy Cow, Where do I Sign up?" Attitudes of Military Veterans Toward Epigenomic Biomarker Toxic Exposure Testing.Military medicine · 2025Article
- Exposomics: a review of methodologies, applications, and future directions in molecular medicine.EMBO molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Black community member perceptions and ethics recommendations on epigenomic research.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- Researcher views on returning results from multi-omics data to research participants: insights from The Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium (MoTrPAC) Study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Review
- Returning personal genetic information on susceptibility to arsenic toxicity to research participants in Bangladesh.Environmental research · 2024Article
- Effects of Interventions to Prevent Work-Related Asthma, Allergy, and Other Hypersensitivity Reactions in Norwegian Salmon Industry Workers (SHInE): Protocol for a Pragmatic Allocated Intervention Trial and Related Substudies.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Article
- Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem.Neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Researcher perspectives on ethics considerations in epigenetics: an international survey.Clinical epigenetics · 2022Article
- Ethical implications of epigenetics in the era of personalized medicine.Clinical epigenetics · 2022Review
- A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- The Exposome Approach in Allergies and Lung Diseases: Is It Time to Define a Preconception Exposome?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Communicating science: epigenetics in the spotlight.Environmental epigenetics · 2020Review
- Ethical Issues in Research and Development of Epigenome-wide Technologies.Epigenetics insights · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As epigenetic studies become more common and lead to new insights into health and disease, the return of individual epigenetic results to research participants, in particular in large-scale epigenomic studies, will be of growing importance. Members of the International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) Bioethics Workgroup considered the potential ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) involved in returning epigenetic research results and incidental findings in order to produce a set of 'Points-to-consider' (P-t-C) for the epigenetics research community. These P-t-C draw on existing guidance on the return of genetic research results, while also integrating the IHEC Bioethics Workgroup's ELSI research on and discussion of the issues associated with epigenetic data as well as the experience of a return of results pilot study by the Personal Genome Project UK (PGP-UK). Major challenges include how to determine the clinical validity and actionability of epigenetic results, and considerations related to environmental exposures and epigenetic marks, including circumstances warranting the sharing of results with family members and third parties. Interdisciplinary collaboration and good public communication regarding epigenetic risk will be important to advance the return of results framework for epigenetic science.
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.