ReviewEJIFCC2020
A Framework to Ethically Approach Incidental Findings in Genetic Research.
Review in EJIFCC, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging Andrology and Oncology: Prognostic Indicators of Cancer Among Infertile Men.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- A framework for the evaluation and reporting of incidental findings in clinical genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Ethical issues in the use of leftover samples and associated personal data obtained from diagnostic laboratories.Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the advancement of science in the area of genetics and genomics, special ethical considerations should be taken in addition to the general ethical framework followed in research. Genetic research can reveal information about the susceptibility of an individual to disease and hence about his/her future health. Such information may be of interest and benefit to research participants, especially if preventive strategies exist. It may also expose them to other risks or anxieties when incidental findings that were not the primary scope of the study are found. Ethical guidelines acknowledge the duty of researchers to disclose incidental findings (IFs) to participants. In this review, we recommend four steps approach that researchers can use to disclose incidental findings: plan for IFs, discuss IFs in informed consent, identify and disclose IFs. Verification and identification of IFs should follow a categorical stratification based on the importance of the findings and the presence of a beneficial intervention to the participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33376470PMC7745305What 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.