ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2020
Predictive testing for neurodegenerative diseases in the age of next-generation sequencing.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communicating and Using Dementia Risk Evidence.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The availability and cost of next-generation sequencing (NSG) now allow testing large numbers of genes simultaneously. However, the gold standard for predictive testing has been to test only for a known family mutation or confirmed family disease. The goal of this study was to investigate the psychological impact of predictive testing for autosomal dominant neurodegenerative diseases without a known family mutation using next-generation sequencing panels compared to single-gene testing of a known family mutation. Fourteen individuals from families with a known mutation and 10 individuals with unknown family mutations participated. Participants completed questionnaires on demographics, genetic knowledge, and psychological measures of anxiety, depression, perceived personal control, rumination, and intolerance to uncertainty at baseline and 1 and 6 months after receiving results. Decision regret was measured 1 and 6 months after receiving results. Participants completed a modified Huntington disease genetic testing protocol with genetic counseling and neurological and psychological evaluation. Genetic testing of either the known family mutation or an NGS panel of neurodegenerative disease genes was performed. Semi-structured interviews were performed at 6 months post-results about their experience. Two-sample t tests were performed on data collected at each time point to identify significant between-group differences in demographic variables, baseline psychological scores, and baseline genetic knowledge scores. Within-group change over time was assessed by a mixed-effects model. Results of this study indicate that NGS panels for predictive testing for neurodegenerative disease are safe and beneficial to participants when performed within a modified HD protocol. Though significant differences in psychological outcomes were found, these differences may have been driven by genetic results and baseline psychological differences between individuals within the groups. Participants did not regret their decision to test and were largely pleased with the testing protocol.
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.