Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33712057›Full record

ReviewHuman genomics2021

Ethical issues in genomics research on neurodevelopmental disorders: a critical interpretive review.

S Mezinska, L Gallagher, M Verbrugge, E M Bunnik

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

S MezinskaFaculty of Medicine and Institute of Clinical and Preventive Medicine, University of Latvia, Jelgavas Str.3, Riga, LV-1004, Latvia. signe.mezinska@lu.lv.ORCID 0000-0002-3190-100X
L GallagherDiscipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
M VerbruggeDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2400, Rotterdam, 3000, CA, The Netherlands.
E M BunnikDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2400, Rotterdam, 3000, CA, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLLatvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies · LVTrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic research on neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), particularly involving minors, combines and amplifies existing research ethics issues for biomedical research. We performed a review of the literature on the ethical issues associated with genomic research involving children affected by NDDs as an aid to researchers to better anticipate and address ethical concerns.

resultsQualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed themes in three main areas: research design and ethics review, inclusion of research participants, and communication of research results. Ethical issues known to be associated with genomic research in general, such as privacy risks and informed consent/assent, seem especially pressing for NDD participants because of their potentially decreased cognitive abilities, increased vulnerability, and stigma associated with mental health problems. Additionally, there are informational risks: learning genetic information about NDD may have psychological and social impact, not only for the research participant but also for family members. However, there are potential benefits associated with research participation, too: by enrolling in research, the participants may access genetic testing and thus increase their chances of receiving a (genetic) diagnosis for their neurodevelopmental symptoms, prognostic or predictive information about disease progression or the risk of concurrent future disorders. Based on the results of our review, we developed an ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs.

conclusionsIn setting up and designing genomic research efforts in NDD, researchers should partner with communities of persons with NDDs. Particular attention should be paid to preventing disproportional burdens of research participation of children with NDDs and their siblings, parents and other family members. Researchers should carefully tailor the information and informed consent procedures to avoid therapeutic and diagnostic misconception in NDD research. To better anticipate and address ethical issues in specific NDD studies, we suggest researchers to use the ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs presented in this paper.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchChildGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansInformed ConsentNeurodevelopmental DisordersParentsPrivacyCritical interpretive reviewGenomics researchMinorsNeurodevelopmental disordersPaediatric researchResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID33712057
PMCPMC7953558
OpenAlexW3134230955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.