ArticleBMC medical genomics2021
Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Psychosocial Impact of Receiving Whole Genome and Whole Exome Sequencing Results in Adults: A Systematic Review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Pooled it
- Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies risk loci for abdominal aortic aneurysm and highlights PCSK9 as a therapeutic target.Nature genetics · 2023Pooled it
- Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- An electronic review of clinical outcomes after return of actionable genetic research results from a health system research biobank.European journal of medical genetics · 2025Trial
- A randomized study of digital versus genetic counselor return of actionable genetic research results to biobank participants (RESPECT3 study).BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Co-produced evidence-based recommendations for cascade screening and secondary prevention in the relatives of people diagnosed with non-syndromic thoracic aortic disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Developing Requirements for a Standardized System to Return Individual Research Results Back to Study Participants: Narrative Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits.Nature neuroscience · 2023Review
- Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.American journal of human genetics · 2021Article
- A Novel Human Biospecimen Repository for Clinical and Molecular Investigation of Thoracic Aortopathy.Cardiogenetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDisclosure of pathogenic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants was implemented. The impact and costs, including confirmatory genetic testing in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, were evaluated.
methodsWe exome sequenced 240 cases with thoracic aortic dissection and 258 controls, then examined 11 aortopathy genes. Pathogenic variants in 6 aortopathy genes (COL3A1, FBN1, LOX, PRKG1, SMAD3, and TGFBR2) were identified in 26 participants, representing 10.8% of the cohort (26/240). A second research sample was used to validate the initial findings. Mailed letters to participants disclosed that a potentially disease causing DNA alteration had been identified (neither the gene nor variant was disclosed). Participants were offered clinical genetic counseling and confirmatory genetic testing in a CLIA laboratory.
resultsExcluding 6 participants who were deceased or lost to follow-up, 20 participants received the disclosure letter, 10 of whom proceeded with genetic counseling, confirmatory genetic testing, and enrolled in a survey study. Participants reported satisfaction with the letter (4.2 ± 0.7) and genetic counseling (4.4 ± 0.4; [out of 5, respectively]). The psychosocial impact was characterized by low decisional regret (11.5 ± 11.6) and distress (16.0 ± 4.2, [out of 100, respectively]). The average cost for 26 participants was $400, including validation and sending letters. The average cost for those who received genetic counseling and CLIA laboratory confirmation was $605.
conclusionsParticipants were satisfied with the return of clinically significant biobank genetic results and CLIA laboratory testing; however, the process required significant time and resources. These findings illustrate the trade-offs involved for researchers considering returning research genetic results.
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.