Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35028914›Full record

ReviewJournal of community genetics2022

A systematic review of the views of healthcare professionals on the scope of preimplantation genetic testing.

Maria Siermann, Zoë Claesen, Laurent Pasquier, Taneli Raivio, Olga Tšuiko, Joris Robert Vermeesch, Pascal Borry

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of community genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Polygenic embryo screening: quo vadis?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria SiermannCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. maria.siermann@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1289-1512
Zoë ClaesenCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Laurent PasquierCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Taneli RaivioDepartment of Physiology, University of Helsinki, 00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Olga TšuikoCenter for Human Genetics, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Joris Robert VermeeschLaboratory for Cytogenetics and Genome Research, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Pascal BorryCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEUniversity of Helsinki · FIVIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology · BE

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 813707
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) involves testing embryos created through in vitro fertilization for the presence of hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities. PGT for monogenic conditions (PGT-M) is generally performed for childhood-onset, lethal disorders, but is increasingly accepted for certain adult-onset conditions, conditions with available treatment options or conditions with lower penetrance. Furthermore, the development of PGT for polygenic conditions (PGT-P) makes ethical questions regarding PGT indications imperative. A systematic review was therefore performed to gather and analyse studies on the perspectives of healthcare professionals on the appropriate scope of PGT, with the aim of getting insights into the concerns about the scope of PGT now and in the near future. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Twelve qualitative articles were included. The main themes extracted were the scope of PGT and decision-making about PGT. Defining 'a serious genetic condition' was seen as complex, but severity, high penetrance and absence of treatability and patients' experience were seen as relevant indications to determine the appropriateness of PGT. In navigating the decision-making processes with patients, professionals experienced friction between setting limits and respecting patients' autonomy. Such friction and ethical dilemmas around seriousness, informed decision-making and preventative medicine show that while expanding the list of possible PGT indications and the development of PGT-P could augment patients' reproductive autonomy, it could also lead to an increased reproductive 'burden' for patients. These insights are crucial for establishing guidelines that help healthcare professionals navigate ethical tensions associated with PGT.

Indexed as

EthicsHealthcare professionalsPerspectivesPGT-MPGT-PPreimplantation genetic testing

Identifiers

PMID35028914
PMCPMC8799829
OpenAlexW4205769789

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.