ArticleExpert review of precision medicine and drug development2017
Integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary care.
Article in Expert review of precision medicine and drug development, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A blockchain-based framework to support pharmacogenetic data sharing.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2022Pooled it
- Understanding the barriers and enablers of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care: a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis.Pharmacogenomics · 2022Pooled it
- Enhancing the Integration of Pre-Emptive Pharmacogenetic (PGx) Testing in Primary Care: Prioritizing Underserved Patients' Preferences in Implementation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Engaging pharmacogenomics in pain management and opioid selection.Pharmacogenomics · 2021Review
- Implementation of Pharmacogenomics and Artificial Intelligence Tools for Chronic Disease Management in Primary Care Setting.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Strategies to Improve the Clinical Outcomes for Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacogenomic Tests.Genes · 2021Review
- 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has greatly expanded due to enhanced understanding of the role of genes in drug response and advances in DNA-based testing technology development. As many primary care visits result in a prescription, the use of PGx testing may be particularly beneficial in this setting. However, integration of PGx testing may be limited as no uniform approach to delivery of tests has been established and providers are ill-prepared to integrate PGx testing into routine care. AREAS COVERED: In this paper, the readiness of primary care practitioners are reviewed as well as strategies to address these barriers based on published research and ongoing activities on education and implementation of PGx testing. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Widespread integration of PGx testing will warrant continued education and point-of-care decisional support. Primary care providers may also benefit from consultation services or team-based care with laboratory medicine specialists, pharmacists, and genetic counselors.
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.