Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33981014›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2021

Balancing scientific interests and the rights of participants in designing a recall by genotype study.

Deborah Mascalzoni, Roberta Biasiotto, Max Borsche, Norbert Brüggemann, Alessandro De Grandi, Martin Goegele, Sara Frygner-Holm, Christine Klein, Maria Kösters, Ciara Staunton and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Clinical relevance and translational impact of reduced penetrance in genetic movement disorders.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2022
    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

13 authors.

Deborah MascalzoniInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy. Deborah.Mascalzoni@eurac.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4156-1464
Roberta BiasiottoInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.
Max BorscheInstitute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9651-5986
Norbert BrüggemannInstitute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Alessandro De GrandiInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.
Martin GoegeleInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.
Sara Frygner-HolmDepartment of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0609-5683
Christine KleinInstitute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Maria KöstersInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.
Ciara StauntonInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3185-440X
Peter P PramstallerInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9831-8302
Michael KrawczakInstitute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Andrew A HicksInstitute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6320-0411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recall by genotype (RbG) studies aim to better understand the phenotypes that correspond to genetic variants of interest, by recruiting carriers of such variants for further phenotyping. RbG approaches pose major ethical and legal challenges related to the disclosure of possibly unwanted genetic information. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study is a longitudinal cohort study based in South Tyrol, Italy. Demand has grown for CHRIS study participants to be enrolled in RbG studies, thus making the design of a suitable ethical framework a pressing need. We here report upon the design of a pilot RbG study conducted with CHRIS study participants. By reviewing the literature and by consulting relevant stakeholders (CHRIS participants, clinical geneticists, ethics board, GPs), we identified key ethical issues in RbG approaches (e.g. complexity of the context, communication of genetic results, measures to further protect participants). The design of the pilot was based on a feasibility assessment, the selection of a suitable test case within the ProtectMove Research Unit on reduced penetrance of hereditary movement disorders, and the development of appropriate recruitment and communication strategies. An empirical study was embedded in the pilot study with the aim of understanding participants' views on RbG. Our experience with the pilot study in CHRIS allowed us to contribute to the development of best practices and policies for RbG studies by drawing recommendations: addressing the possibility of RbG in the original consent, implementing tailored communication strategies, engaging stakeholders, designing embedded empirical studies, and sharing research experiences and methodology.

Indexed as

Genetic Association StudiesGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenotypePhenotypeResearch DesignDisclosureEthics, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentItalyPatient SelectionPilot ProjectsUbiquitin-Protein Ligasesparkin proteinUbiquitin-Protein Ligases

Identifiers

PMID33981014
PMCPMC8298596

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.