Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Does Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genetic Testing Improve Gynecological Cancer Screening Uptake among Never-Screened Attendees? A Randomized Controlled Study.
Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Policy Guidance for Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Services: Framework Development Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) on health behavior change has remained controversial. The aim of this study is to clarify the short-term effects of DTC-GT on gynecological cancer screening uptake among middle-aged never-screened Japanese women in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A total of 144 women aged 45-50 who had never undergone gynecological cancer screening were randomly selected to receive health education (control group), or health education and DTC-GT (intervention group), at a 1:1 ratio. We compared the gynecological screening uptake during the follow-up period. Furthermore, to estimate the impact of learning of an elevated genetic cancer risk in the intervention group, we conducted an analysis dichotomized by genetic risk category. A total of 139 women completed the one-year follow-up survey (69 in the control group and 70 in the intervention group). The follow-up period did not differ between control and intervention groups (the median follow-up period was 276 days and 279 days, respectively,
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.