Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35705790›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2022

Ethical, legal and social/societal implications (ELSI) of recall-by-genotype (RbG) and genotype-driven-research (GDR) approaches: a scoping review.

Katharina Tschigg, Luca Consoli, Roberta Biasiotto, Deborah Mascalzoni

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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. Guidelines, guidelines everywhere-and still I'm not sure what to do.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Katharina TschiggDepartment of Cellular, Computational, and Integrative Biology, University of Trento, Trento, Italy. katharina.tschigg@eurac.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5146-3492
Luca ConsoliInstitute for Science in Society, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Roberta BiasiottoInstitute for Biomedicine & Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy, Bozen, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8845-9670
Deborah MascalzoniInstitute for Biomedicine & Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy, Bozen, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4156-1464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recall by Genotype (RbG), Genotype-driven-recall (GDR), and Genotype-based-recall (GBR) strategies are increasingly used to conduct genomic or biobanking sub-studies that single out participants as eligible because of their specific individual genotypic information. However, existing regulatory and governance frameworks do not apply to all aspects of genotype-driven research approaches. The recall strategies disclose or withhold personal genotypic information with uncertain clinical utility. Accordingly, this scoping review aims to identify peculiar, explicit and implicit ethical, legal, and societal/social implications (ELSI) of RbG study designs. We conducted a systematic literature search of three electronic databases from November 2020 to February 2021. We investigated qualitative and quantitative research methods used to report ELSI aspects in RbG research. Congruent with other research findings, we identified a lack of qualitative research investigating the particular ELSI challenges with RbG. We included and analysed the content of twenty-five publications. We found a consensus on RbG posing significant ethical issues, dilemmas, barriers, concerns and societal challenges. However, we found that the approaches to disclosure and study-specific recall and communication strategies employed consent models and Return of Research Results (RoRR) policies varied considerably. Furthermore, we identified a high heterogeneity in perspectives of participants and experts about ELSI of study-specific RbG policies. Therefore, further fine-mapping through qualitative and empirical research is needed to draw conclusions and re-fine ELSI frameworks.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksGenomicsGenotypeHumansMoralsResearch Report

Identifiers

PMID35705790
PMCPMC9437022

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.