ArticleJAMIA open2019
The FDA authorization of direct-to-consumer genetic testing for three
Article in JAMIA open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neighborhood Opportunity and Genetic Literacy in a Representative Sample of US Adults.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices of cancer genetics in family medicine in Japan: a mixed methods study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Understanding changes in genetic literacy over time and in genetic research participants.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Mini-Review: Genetic Literacy and Engagement With Genetic Testing for Autism Spectrum Disorder.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Genetic Privacy and Data Protection: A Review of Chinese Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Services.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing on Social Media: Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis of YouTube Users' Comments.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn March 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its authorization of a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic test for three pathogenic
methodsUsing Crimson Hexagon, we described tweets before, during, and after the FDA announcement authorizing 23andMe to return
resultsWe identified 11 055 twitter posts across the week of FDA's announcement. Twitter discourse about 23andMe and the FDA authorization peaked the day following the FDA's press release. Most tweets (48.6%) were informational and 26.3% were either expressing opinions (about 23andMe and/or FDA authorization, 14.9%) or testimonials (personal experiences with genetic testing, 11.4%). The types of tweets varied over the week-long period ( DISCUSSION: Twitter discussion about the FDA's authorization of DTC for three pathogenic
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.