Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35571025›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022

Incomplete Penetrance of Population-Based Genetic Screening Results in Electronic Health Record.

Gai Elhanan, Daniel Kiser, Iva Neveux, Shaun Dabe, Alexandre Bolze, William J Metcalf, James T Lu, Joseph J Grzymski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gai ElhananCenter for Genomic Medicine, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, United States.
Daniel KiserCenter for Genomic Medicine, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, United States.
Iva NeveuxCenter for Genomic Medicine, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, United States.
Shaun DabeRenown Health, Reno, NV, United States.
Alexandre BolzeHelix, San Mateo, CA, United States.
William J MetcalfCenter for Genomic Medicine, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, United States.
James T LuHelix, San Mateo, CA, United States.
Joseph J GrzymskiCenter for Genomic Medicine, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV, United States.
Genomic Health (United States) · USDesert Research Institute · USHelix (United States) · USRenown Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical value of population-based genetic screening projects depends on the actions taken on the findings. The Healthy Nevada Project (HNP) is an all-comer genetic screening and research project based in northern Nevada. HNP participants with CDC Tier 1 findings of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome (LS), or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are notified and provided with genetic counseling. However, the HNP subsequently takes a "hands-off" approach: it is the responsibility of notified participants to share their findings with their healthcare providers, and providers are expected to implement the recommended action plans. Thus, the HNP presents an opportunity to evaluate the efficiency of participant and provider responses to notification of important genetic findings, using electronic health records (EHRs) at Renown Health (a large regional hospital in northern Nevada). Out of 520 HNP participants with findings, we identified 250 participants who were notified of their findings and who had an EHR. 107 of these participants responded to a survey, with 76 (71%) indicating that they had shared their findings with their healthcare providers. However, a sufficiently specific genetic diagnosis appeared in the EHRs and problem lists of only 22 and 10%, respectively, of participants without prior knowledge. Furthermore, review of participant EHRs provided evidence of possible relevant changes in clinical care for only a handful of participants. Up to 19% of participants would have benefited from earlier screening due to prior presentation of their condition. These results suggest that continuous support for both participants and their providers is necessary to maximize the benefit of population-based genetic screening. We recommend that genetic screening projects require participants' consent to directly document their genetic findings in their EHRs. Additionally, we recommend that they provide healthcare providers with ongoing training regarding documentation of findings and with clinical decision support regarding subsequent care.

Indexed as

BRCACDC Tier 1EHRfamilial hypercholesterolemiagenetic screeningHBOCLynchpopulation health

Identifiers

PMID35571025
PMCPMC9091193
OpenAlexW4224936670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.