Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651385›Full record

ArticleAMA journal of ethics2019

Should Clinicians Leave "Expanded" Carrier Screening Decisions to Patients?

Amanda Fakih, Kayte Spector-Bagdady

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMA journal of ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Amanda FakihAn administrative fellow at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, California.
Kayte Spector-BagdadyAn assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor, where she is also the chief of the Research Ethics Service, the chair of the Research Ethics Committee, and a clinical ethicist at the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine.

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many patients choose to undergo some type of carrier screening when pregnant or planning to become pregnant. "Expanded" carrier screening products test all patients for the same conditions, regardless of family history, race, or ethnicity. Proponents of expanded screening argue that testing everyone for everything can identify more couples at risk of having an affected fetus. However, most conditions on expanded carrier screening panels do not adhere to criteria recommended by professional organizations and can leave patients with a positive test result but little helpful information about actual clinical risk for their future baby. Confusion persists about whether clinicians should leave carrier screening decisions to patients.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGenetic Carrier ScreeningFemaleHumansMalePregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31651385
PMCPMC6988386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.