Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35386504›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2022

Potential pitfalls of reproductive direct-to-consumer testing.

Frank Z Stanczyk, Rachel S Mandelbaum, Rogerio A Lobo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F&S reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Frank Z StanczykDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Rachel S MandelbaumDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Rogerio A LoboDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing has dramatically increased over the past 2 decades, particularly those targeted at reproduction and fertility. Several ethical concerns exist with regard to DTC tests, including the lack of governmental regulation and consumer protection, standardized laboratory methodology, and clinical validity and actionability. Physicians must familiarize themselves with the pitfalls of DTC tests to best aid patients in interpreting DTC test results and guide them toward evidence-based treatment plans.

Indexed as

Direct-to-consumer testingfertility diagnostic testinglaboratory methodologyovarian reserve testing

Identifiers

PMID35386504
PMCPMC8978065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.