Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34826052›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied genetics2022

Genetic testing-whether to allow complete freedom? Direct to consumer tests versus genetic tests for medical purposes.

Madej Malgorzata, Sąsiadek Maria, Witt Michał

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Tackling Atherosclerosis via Selected Nutrition.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
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

3 authors.

Madej MalgorzataInstitute of Political Science, University of Wroclaw, Wrocław, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-8614
Sąsiadek MariaDepartment of Genetics, Medical University of Wroclaw, Wrocław, Poland. maria.sasiadek@umed.wroc.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7599-7074
Witt MichałInstitute of Human Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1729-4159

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Direct-to-consumer tests opened the opportunity of genetic testing without medical supervision, e.g., without medical referral and medical interpretation of the results. Thus, these approaches allow for free access to information concerning individual genetic profile increasing the area of personal freedom, but also posing the risk of false (positive and negative) or misinterpreted results along with health and psychological negative consequences. The paper discusses medical and non-medical applications of DTC, exploring also the legal framework implemented by European states and organizations. These legal acts strive to control the developing DTC market through such basic principles as patient protection, informed consent, medical information confidentiality, and the rights to know and to refuse knowledge about one's genetic predispositions.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingInformed ConsentConfidentialityFreedomGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansDirect-to-consumer testsDTCEUGenetic data protectionGenetic medical testsLegal acts

Identifiers

PMID34826052
PMCPMC8755658

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.