ArticleThe American journal of medicine2020
Consistency of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Results Among Identical Twins.
Article in The American journal of medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating genetic ancestry into clinical care: Accuracy, utility, and stakeholder views.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Comparison of The Results of Sponsored Genetic Testing Panels for Inherited Retinal Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Ancestry, race and ethnicity: the role and relevance of language in clinical genetics practice.Journal of medical genetics · 2024Article
- Time considered as a helix of infinite possibilities.Medical humanities · 2021Article
- Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Prospective users' attitudes toward information about ancestry and biological relationships.PloS one · 2021Article
- Birds of a Feather? Genetic Counseling, Genetic Testing, and Humanism.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the consistency of 3 commonly used direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits. Genetic testing kits are widely marketed by several companies but the consistency of their results is unclear. Because identical twins share the same DNA, their genetic testing results should provide insight into test consistency.
methodsForty-two identical twins (21 pairs) provided samples for 3 testing companies. Outcomes were concordance of ancestry results when twin pairs were tested by the same company and the same participant was tested by different companies. Concordance of 8 self-reported traits with 23andMe genetic analyses were also examined.
resultsConcordance of ancestry results when twin pairs were tested by the same company was high, with mean percentage agreement ranging from 94.5% to 99.2%. Concordance of ancestry results when participants were tested by 2 different companies was lower, with mean percentage agreement ranging from 52.7% to 84.1%. Concordance of trait results was variable, ranging from 34.1% for deep sleep and detached earlobes to 90.2% for cleft chin.
conclusionThe consistency of consumer genetic testing is high for ancestry results within companies but lower and more variable for ancestry results across companies and for specific traits. These results raise questions about the usefulness of such testing.
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.