ReviewPrenatal diagnosis2022
A framework for reporting secondary and incidental findings in prenatal sequencing: When and for whom?
Review in Prenatal diagnosis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global recommendations for the use of diagnostic genomic sequencing in the prenatal setting on behalf of the ESHG and ISPD.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Twenty-Two Years of Prenatal Testing for Suspected Monogenic Disorders: A Retrospective Single-Center Experience in Western Romania.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Arrival of Exome Sequencing in French Prenatal Diagnosis: An Exploratory Qualitative Study Among Professionals in Prenatal Diagnosis Centers: Prenatome-SHS.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Prenatal Use of Exome Sequencing and Chromosomal Microarray Analysis: Indications, Interpretation, and Gene Selection Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing for Pregnancies With and Without Fetal Anomalies and for Stillbirth.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Laboratory and clinical genetic Counselor's perspectives on the reporting of personal health risks on carrier screening reports.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- An overview of current prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis guidelines.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Use of Prenatal Exome Sequencing: Opinion Statement of the French Federation of Human Genetics Working Group.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Review
- Exome sequencing in every pregnancy? Results of trio exome sequencing in structurally normal fetuses.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Editorial: severity in a genomic age.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- The Challenges of Performing Exome Sequencing in Structurally Normal Fetuses.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Emerging and evolving values in the changing landscape of genomics.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Incidental genomic findings in large scale research: using the "3-I framework" to reveal policy considerations.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations.Human reproduction update · 2024Review
- A framework for the evaluation and reporting of incidental findings in clinical genomic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Ethics of artificial intelligence in prenatal and pediatric genomic medicine.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Paediatric systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and the development of patient-specific therapy: ethical perspectives through experts' opinions.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Implementation of Exome Sequencing in Prenatal Diagnostics: Chances and Challenges.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Prenatal diagnosis by trio exome sequencing in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: A powerful diagnostic tool.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Return of non-ACMG recommended incidental genetic findings to pediatric patients: considerations and opportunities from experiences in genomic sequencing.Genome medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the use of genomic sequencing (GS) in the prenatal setting becomes more widespread, laboratories and clinicians will be tasked with making decisions about whether to offer incidental and secondary findings to expectant parents and, if so, which ones. Unfortunately, few guidelines or position statements issued by professional bodies address the return of secondary findings specifically in the context of prenatal GS, nor do they offer clear guidance on whether, and which types of incidental findings should be reported. Laboratories and clinicians will also need to navigate other challenges, such as how to obtain sufficiently informed consent, workload burdens for both laboratories and clinicians, and funding. Here we discuss these, and other challenges associated with offering incidental and secondary findings in the context of prenatal GS. We outline existing guidelines for return of these findings, prenatally and in children. We review the existing literature on stakeholder perspectives on return of incidental and secondary findings and discuss the main practical and ethical challenges that require consideration. We then propose a framework to help guide decision-making, suggesting a baseline routine analysis, with additional layers of analysis that could be offered, according to local laboratory policy, with additional opt-in consent from the parents.
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.