Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31886409›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2019

Genomic variant sharing: a position statement.

Caroline F Wright, James S Ware, Anneke M Lucassen, Alison Hall, Anna Middleton, Nazneen Rahman, Sian Ellard, Helen V Firth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Considerations for reporting variants in novel candidate genes identified during clinical genomic testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Ethical Considerations in Research with Genomic Data.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2021
    Article
  17. Rethinking the ethical principles of genomic medicine services.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Caroline F WrightInstitute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2958-5076
James S WareNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial Centre for Translational and Experimental Medicine, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6110-5880
Anneke M LucassenDepartment of Clinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3324-4338
Alison HallPHG Foundation, Cambridge, UK.
Anna MiddletonFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3103-8098
Nazneen RahmanDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, UK, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4376-0440
Sian EllardInstitute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7620-5526
Helen V FirthDepartment of Clinical Genetics, University of Cambridge Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6410-0882
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GBPHG Foundation · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UP_1102/20Wellcome Trust 208053/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sharing de-identified genetic variant data is essential for the practice of genomic medicine and is demonstrably beneficial to patients. Robust genetic diagnoses that inform medical management cannot be made accurately without reference to genetic test results from other patients, as well as population controls. Errors in this process can result in delayed, missed or erroneous diagnoses, leading to inappropriate or missed medical interventions for the patient and their family. The benefits of sharing individual genetic variants, and the harms of

Indexed as

data ethicsdata sharingmedical genomicsvariant

Identifiers

PMID31886409
PMCPMC6913213
OpenAlexW2912924767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.