Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31857707›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2020

Parents' perceptions of personal utility of exome sequencing results.

Lonna Mollison, Julianne M O'Daniel, Gail E Henderson, Jonathan S Berg, Debra Skinner

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lonna MollisonDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. lmolliso@email.unc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9131-4106
Julianne M O'DanielDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Gail E HendersonDepartment of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jonathan S BergDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Debra SkinnerFPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UL1TR001111 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$43.9M
North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by Next-gen Exome Sequencing 2U01HG006487 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BERG, JONATHAN S, POWELL, BRADFORD C. · 2012 to 2021
$22.7M
Center for Genomics and SocietyP50HG004488 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HENDERSON, GAIL E · 2007 to 2017
$12.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001111NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG004488NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006487
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeClinical genome or exome sequencing (GS/ES) provides a diagnosis for many individuals with suspected genetic disorders, but also yields negative or uncertain results for the majority. This study examines how parents of a child with an undiagnosed condition attribute personal utility to all types of ES results.

methodsReturn of 31 exome sequencing results was observed during clinic sessions, followed by semistructured interviews with parents one month later. Observations and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data display matrices were used for content analysis and systematic comparisons of parents' perceptions of utility.

resultsES results could not provide all the answers to parents' questions, especially in cases of clinically uninformative results, but parents nonetheless attributed utility to the knowledge gained. Parents across all results categories used the genomic information to rule out possible causes, end or postpone the diagnostic odyssey, and shift focus to treatment and management of symptoms.

conclusionThis study suggests that parents value even uninformative ES results while expressing hope for future discoveries. As pediatric genetics moves toward GS/ES as a first-tier test, how parents perceive the personal utility of negative or uncertain results is an important topic for genetic counseling and further research.

Indexed as

ExomeGenetic TestingChildGenetic CounselingHumansParentsPerceptiondiagnostic testingexome sequencingparent perceptionspediatricspersonal utility

Identifiers

PMID31857707
PMCPMC7192542
OpenAlexW2996317153

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.