ArticleJournal of community genetics2021
Dying to see you? Deaths on a clinical genetics waiting list in the Republic of Ireland; what are the consequences?
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient harms during delayed access to clinical genetics services. A systematic literature review and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM).European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- What is risk in clinical genetics? Designing and piloting tools to evaluate risk in clinical genetics using failure modes and effects analysis.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Experience of people with Biochemical Genetic Disorders and their families accessing Genetic Counselling and Genetic Testing in the Irish Republic.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- A survey of genetic and palliative care health professionals' views of integrating genetics into palliative care.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Genetic services survey-experience of people with rare diseases and their families accessing genetic services in the Irish Republic.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Ordering genetic testing by neurologists: points to consider.Journal of neurology · 2023Review
- A pilot study investigating feasibility of mainstreaming germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in three tertiary Cancer Centres in Ireland.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Duplication of referral, a tsunami of paper: how much does it cost the Irish health services?Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis into the experiences of being identified with a BRCA1/2 gene alteration: "So many little, little traumas could have been avoided".BMC health services research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attempts to put a value on a clinical genetic consultation are challenging as outcome measures are not easily quantified. One technique is to consider the negative consequences to a referred patient who is never seen. In order to estimate possible negative effects and by default the value of a genetics consultation; we sought to identify the consequences both to the proband, who died awaiting appointment, and their relatives. We audited 45 referrals to our service who died on our waiting list since 2008. Of these, 39/45 were new referrals, and the remainder, 6/45, died awaiting a follow up appointment. Relatives from 14/45 (31%) families have been counselled since the proband's death. We estimated a minimal total of 207 living first degree relatives to 45 probands. The majority (30/45) were referred for cancer risk estimation (1 predictive, 29 diagnostic), 11 developmental delay/dysmorphology referrals, 3 cardiac genetic referrals, (2 predictive testing, 1 segregation analysis) and 1 a referral for early onset dementia. The deaths of 17/45 cases were judged by us as having potentially significantly impacted the health of 76 first-degree relatives; 13/45 have potentially moderately impacted the health of 57 first-degree relatives; 12/45 posed a minimal impact to their relatives; and in 3/45 cases families were fully counselled. For each proband, significantly or moderately negatively impacted (n = 30), they have a minimum of 4.4 first-degree relatives, range 1-11, total = 133.
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.