Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34970636›Full record

ReviewJCO precision oncology2020

Evaluating Web-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests for Cancer Susceptibility.

Madison K Kilbride, Angela R Bradbury

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JCO precision oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The Role of Genetic Testing for Parkinson's Disease.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2021
    Review
  12. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Madison K KilbrideDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Angela R BradburyDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

The Penn Postdoctoral Training Program in the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Genetics and GenomicsT32HG009496 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Steven Joffe · 2017 to 2026
$3.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG009496
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecent years have seen direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing for cancer susceptibility change dramatically. For one, a new model now dominates the market where tests are advertised to consumers but ordered by physicians. For another, many of today's tests are distinguished from earlier DTC offerings for cancer susceptibility by their scope and potential clinical significance. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available DTC genetic tests for cancer susceptibility and identifies aspects of the DTC testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and understand their results.

methodsFirst, we provide an overview of each DTC genetic test for cancer susceptibility that includes information about cost; who orders it; whether variants of uncertain significance are returned; availability of genetic counseling; intended users; management of variant reclassifications; whether it is characterized as diagnostic, actionable, and clinically valid; molecular technique used; and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments/College of American Pathologists status. Second, we identify six aspects of the testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and interpret their results: How companies use certain terms (eg, medical grade or clinical grade); how companies use consumers' health information during the ordering process; the extent of genetic counseling provided by companies; companies' procedures for returning results; the role of company-provided ordering physicians; and companies' procedures for communicating variant reclassifications.

resultsOn the basis of our review of companies' Web sites, we believe that consumers would benefit from more information about these aspects of testing.

conclusionProviding this information would help consumers make informed decisions about whether to use a particular DTC genetic testing service and, should they choose to pursue testing, understand the implications and limitations of their results.

Identifiers

PMID34970636
PMCPMC8714633
OpenAlexW3010623149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.