Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32393330›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2020

Addressing ethical challenges of disclosure in dementia prediction: limitations of current guidelines and suggestions to proceed.

Zümrüt Alpinar-Sencan, Silke Schicktanz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Counseling and disclosure practices in predictive Alzheimer's disease diagnostics: A scoping review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Biomarkers of aging.Science China. Life sciences · 2023
    Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zümrüt Alpinar-SencanDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 36, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. zuemruet.alpinar-sencan@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6635-3317
Silke SchicktanzDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 36, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9627-752X
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development G-1413-119.4/2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomarker research is gaining increasing attention focusing on the preclinical stages of the disease. Such interest requires special attention for communication and disclosure in clinical contexts. Many countries give dementia a high health policy priority by developing national strategies and by improving guidelines addressing disclosure of a diagnosis; however, risk communication is often neglected. MAIN TEXT: This paper aims to identify the challenges of disclosure in the context of dementia prediction and to find out whether existing clinical guidelines sufficiently address the issues of disclosing a dementia diagnosis and of disclosing the risk of developing dementia in asymptomatic and MCI stage. We will examine clinical guidelines and recommendations of three countries (USA, Canada and Germany) regarding predictive testing and diagnostic disclosure in dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to show their potentials and limits. This will provide a background to address ethical implications of predictive information and to identify ways how to proceed further. We will start by examining the guidelines and recommendations by focusing on what there is already and what is missing regarding the challenges of disclosing dementia prediction and MCI. Then, we will highlight the novel ethical issues generated by the shift to identify preclinical stages of the disease by biomarkers. We will argue for the need to develop guidelines for disclosing a risk status, which requires different considerations then disclosing a diagnosis of dementia. Finally, we will make some suggestions on how to address the gap and challenges raised by referring to German Stakeholder Conference, which presents us a good starting point to the applicability of involving stakeholders.

conclusionsThis paper underlines the need to develop empirically based guidelines that address the ethical and social strategies for risk communication of dementia prediction by genetic as well as non-genetic biomarkers. According to our analysis, the guidelines do not address the new developments sufficiently. International efforts should aim for specific guidelines on counseling, communicating risk and disclosing results. We argue that guidelines on (risk) disclosure should be developed by involving various stakeholders and should be informed by socio-empirical studies involving laypersons' needs and wishes regarding risk communication.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionDementiaDisclosureCanadaGermanyHumansBiomarkersClinical guidelinesCommunicationDementia predictionDisclosureRisk informationStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID32393330
PMCPMC7216419
OpenAlexW3024517573

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.