ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2022
A qualitative interview study of the attitudes toward reproductive options of people with genetic visual loss.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The attitudes of individuals with or at risk of adult-onset genetic conditions on reproductive genetic testing: A systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Pooled it
- Decision-Making Around Preimplantation Genetic Testing by Individuals With Neurofibromatosis Type I: A Qualitative Study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- A national cross-sectional study of patients with inherited retinal disease in China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Genetic testing and reproductive decision-making in Chinese families with inherited retinal disease: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Reproductive decision-making for Barth syndrome carriers: Unexplored complexities.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Patients and Clinicians on Reproductive Health Care and ADPKD.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- A qualitative interview study of the attitudes toward reproductive options of people with genetic visual loss.Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the United Kingdom (U.K), 2.19 million people are affected by visual loss. Monogenic causes of visual loss include retinal dystrophies, optic neuropathies, and congenital glaucoma. A variety of reproductive options are available to adults with genetic visual loss to permit them to have an unaffected child. Prenatal diagnostic testing (PND) via amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) is possible, provided the causal genetic variants are known in the family. We report a qualitative interview study of people with genetic causes of visual loss to explore their attitudes toward reproductive options. Participants reported a range of challenges associated with living with genetic conditions associated with visual loss. These had the potential to shape attitudes to reproductive options. Participants expressed enthusiasm for genetic testing, as it enabled them to understand if relatives might be affected by the visual loss. Decisions around reproductive options were recognized as challenging and highly personal. Positive opinions of PGT were reported, as it permitted conception of a child without the genetic cause of visual loss while avoiding the need for the termination of pregnancy. The provision of accessible information resources on genetics and reproductive options was reported to be important.
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.