Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33445171›Full record

ArticlePublic health genomics2021

Impact of Previous Genetic Counseling and Objective Numeracy on Accurate Interpretation of a Pharmacogenetics Test Report.

Kelly Drelles, Robert Pilarski, Kandamurugu Manickam, Abigail B Shoben, Amanda Ewart Toland

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Public health genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Moving Pharmacogenetics Into Practice: It's All About the Evidence!Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Kelly DrellesDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Robert PilarskiDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Kandamurugu ManickamDivision of Genetic and Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Abigail B ShobenCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Amanda Ewart TolandDivision of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA, amanda.toland@osumc.edu.

Funding

Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Jennifer A. Woyach · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
The OSU Center for Clinical and Translational Science: Advancing Today's Discoveries to Improve HealthUL1TR002733 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI RINGEL, MATTHEW D · 2018 to 2022
$28.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002733NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can be useful for providing information about a patient's drug response by increasing drug efficacy and decreasing the incidence of adverse drug events. While PGx tests were previously only offered to patients under healthcare provider supervision, they are now available as direct to consumer (DTC) tests. This study aimed to assess how accurately individuals from the general population were able to interpret a sample PGx test report and if accuracy differed based on individuals' numeracy or prior genetic counseling (GC).

methodsWe surveyed 293 individuals from the general population, ascertained through ResearchMatch. The survey included questions about PGx test interpretation, numeracy, and genetic literacy.

resultsIn our cohort, numeracy level impacted PGx result interpretation, with those of high numeracy performing statistically significantly better on both the table format and graphical format (p value = 0.002 and p value <0.001, respectively) and genetic knowledge questions (p value <0.001) than those with low/average numeracy. In addition, previous GC did not impact test interpretation or genetic knowledge, but the number of individuals with prior GC was small (n = 26). DISCUSSION/

conclusionWe found that numeracy had a significant impact on correct interpretation of PGx test reports. Because many individuals in the USA have low numeracy levels, it is extremely important that patients do not make their own medication management decision based on the test results and that they consult with their physicians about their PGx testing. The importance of consultation and discussion with providers about results should be emphasized on the test report.

Indexed as

Direct-To-Consumer Screening and TestingGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingPharmacogeneticsAdolescentAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultGenetic counselingGenetic test reportsNumeracyPharmacogenetic testingTest interpretation

Identifiers

PMID33445171
PMCPMC7920902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.