ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2020
What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- A randomized trial to evaluate attitudes regarding pharmacogenomics among pregnant and pediatric populations: design and baseline characteristics.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Trial
- An electronic review of clinical outcomes after return of actionable genetic research results from a health system research biobank.European journal of medical genetics · 2025Trial
- Restraints on Personal Utility in Genomic Testing.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- A randomized study of digital versus genetic counselor return of actionable genetic research results to biobank participants (RESPECT3 study).BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Supporting decisions about genomic newborn screening at scale in the digital age: the BabyScreen+ study.NPJ genomic medicine · 2026Article
- Perceived understanding and psychosocial outcomes: employees' responses to learning results of workplace genetic testing.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Studying the impact of translational genomic research: Lessons from eMERGE.American journal of human genetics · 2023Review
- Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.Personalized medicine · 2021Review
- An electronic health record (EHR) log analysis shows limited clinician engagement with unsolicited genetic test results.JAMIA open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians' reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be "helpful," even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians' concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.
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.