Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35629115›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation.

Kimberly S Foss, Julianne M O'Daniel, Jonathan S Berg, Sabrina N Powell, Rosemary Jean Cadigan, Kristine J Kuczynski, Laura V Milko, Katherine W Saylor, Megan Roberts, Karen Weck and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Elective genomic sequencing for adults in research, clinical and commercial contexts.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Kimberly S FossDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Julianne M O'DanielDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5843-4432
Jonathan S BergDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2360-2664
Sabrina N PowellDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0394-6972
Rosemary Jean CadiganDepartment of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Kristine J KuczynskiDepartment of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Laura V MilkoDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8060-9013
Katherine W SaylorDepartment of Public Policy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Megan RobertsDivision of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Karen WeckDepartment of Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Gail E HendersonDepartment of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdvances in clinical genomic sequencing capabilities, including reduced costs and knowledge gains, have bolstered the consideration of genomic screening in healthy adult populations. Yet, little is known about the existing landscape of genomic screening programs in the United States. It can be difficult to find information on current implementation efforts and best practices, particularly in light of critical questions about equity, cost, and benefit.

methodsIn 2020, we searched publicly available information on the Internet and the scientific literature to identify programs and collect information, including: setting, program funding, targeted population, test offered, and patient cost. Program representatives were contacted throughout 2020 and 2021 to clarify, update, and supplement the publicly available information.

resultsTwelve programs were identified. Information was available on key program features, such as setting, genes tested, and target populations. Data on costs, outcomes, or long-term sustainability plans were not always available. Most programs offered testing at no or significantly reduced cost due to generous pilot funding, although the sustainability of these programs remains unknown. Gene testing lists were diverse, ranging from 11 genes (CDC tier 1 genes) to 59 genes (ACMG secondary findings list v.2) to broad exome and genome sequencing. This diversity presents challenges for harmonized data collection and assessment of program outcomes.

conclusionsEarly programs are exploring the logistics and utility of population genomic screening in various settings. Coordinated efforts are needed to take advantage of data collected about uptake, infrastructure, and intervention outcomes to inform future research, evaluation, and program development.

Indexed as

genomic testingpopulation screeningsequencing programs

Identifiers

PMID35629115
PMCPMC9145687

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.