ArticleJMA journal2022
A Pilot Study for Return of Individual Pharmacogenomic Results to Population-Based Cohort Study Participants.
Article in JMA journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations for return of secondary genomic findings in observational cohort studies.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Symposium report-ethical and social considerations regarding return of secondary findings in atomic bomb survivors.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- Developing Requirements for a Standardized System to Return Individual Research Results Back to Study Participants: Narrative Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Returning genetic risk information for hereditary cancers to participants in a population-based cohort study in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Experiences and Perspectives of Women Undergoing Oocyte Cryopreservation in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Stakeholder Perception of the Implementation of Genetic Risk Testing for Twelve Multifactorial Diseases.Genes · 2023Article
- Biobanking as a Tool for Genomic Research: From Allele Frequencies to Cross-Ancestry Association Studies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Assessing patient understanding of pharmacogenomic test results: a qualitative study.PharmacogenomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing results provide valuable information on drug selection and appropriate dosing, maximization of efficacy, and minimization of adverse effects. Although the number of large-scale, next-generation-sequencing-based PGx studies has recently increased, little is known about the risks and benefits of returning PGx results to ostensibly healthy individuals in research settings. Methods: Single-nucleotide variants of three actionable PGx genes, namely, Results: Whereas the majority of participants were unfamiliar with the term PGx, and none had undergone PGx testing before the study, more than 80% of the participants felt that they could acquire basic PGx knowledge sufficient to understand their genomic results and were satisfied with their potential benefit and use in future prescriptions. On the other hand, some felt that the PGx concepts or terminology was difficult to fully understand and suggested that in-person return of the results was desirable. Conclusions: These results collectively suggest possible benefits of returning preemptive PGx information to ostensibly healthy cohort participants in a research setting.
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.