ArticleBMJ open2021
Evaluation of two population screening programmes for
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health professionals contacting patients' relatives directly about genetic risk (with patient consent): current clinical practice and perspectives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) ancestry are more likely than unselected populations to have a METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To rmeasure the acceptability of population-based B-JFM screening in Australia, two screening programmes using different methodologies have been developed. The Sydney JeneScreen programme provides information and obtains informed consent by way of an online tool. The Melbourne JeneScreen programme does this by way of community sessions attended in person. Participants complete questionnaires to measure clinical and psychosocial outcomes at baseline, and for those who have testing, 2 weeks postresult. Participants who decline testing are sent a questionnaire regarding reasons for declining. Participants with a B-JFM are sent questionnaires 12-month and 24-month post-testing. The questionnaires incorporate validated scales, which measure anxiety, decisional conflict and regret, and test-related distress and positive experiences, and other items specifically developed or adapted for the study. These measures will be assessed for each programme and the two population-based B-JFM screening methods will be compared. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained from the South Eastern Area Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee: HREC Ref 16/125.Following the analysis of the study results, the findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and publications, and directly to participants in writing.
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.