ArticleF&S reports2021
Specialist physicians' referral behavior regarding preimplantation genetic testing for single-gene disorders: Is there room to grow?
Article in F&S reports, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether primary care specialists' demographics, specialty, and knowledge of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) influence their practice patterns.
designCross-sectional survey study.
settingAcademic medical center. PATIENTS: Not applicable.
interventionsNone.
main outcome measuresObjective PGT-M knowledge, subjective comfort with PGT-related topics, PGT care practices (discussions/referrals), and PGT-M implementation barriers.
resultsOur survey had 145 respondents: 65 obstetrician/gynecologists, 36 internists, and 44 pediatricians. Overall, 88% believed that patients at a risk of passing on genetic disorders should be provided PGT-M information. However, few discussed PGT-M with their patients (24%) or referred them for testing (23%). Over half (63%) believed that the lack of physician knowledge was a barrier to PGT use. In terms of subjective comfort with PGT, only 1 in 5 physicians felt familiar enough with the topic to answer patient questions. There were higher odds of discussing (odds ratio, 3.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.75-5.87) or referring for PGT (odds ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-4.51) for each additional 0.5 correct answers to PGT knowledge-related questions. The odds of referring patients for PGT-M were the highest among obstetrician/gynecologists compared with those among the internists and pediatricians.
conclusionsPhysician specialty and PGT knowledge were associated with PGT-M care delivery practices. Although most specialists believed in equipping at-risk patients with PGT-M information, <1 in 4 discussed or referred patients for PGT. The low levels of PGT-related care among providers may be owed to inadequate knowledge of and comfort with the topic. An opportunity to promote greater understanding of PGT-M among primary care specialists exists and can in turn improve the use of referrals to PGT-M services.
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.