ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2022
Lack of consensus among healthcare professionals at a large academic medical center on the use of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- "The Way We Do Things is Unsustainable"-Exploring Symptoms of Burnout Among Healthcare Professionals in Prenatal Genomics.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) is increasingly used for prenatal diagnosis because emerging data indicate it has incremental diagnostic benefit in pregnancies with fetal anomalies without identified genetic abnormalities by karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the medical community's attitude toward the clinical utility and use of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis and to address differences in attitudes and responses by type of practitioner, level of training, and years passed since last full-time training. We analyzed the answers of 109 trainees and professionals in the fields of genetic counseling, laboratory science, and medicine to an online survey addressing these topics. Multiple-choice questions asked participants about their awareness of prenatal ES and what genetic test they would choose to order in certain scenarios. Likert-scale questions assessed participants' opinions of statements asserting when prenatal ES should be used for diagnostic testing. Attitude toward the use of prenatal ES statistically differed (p < 0.05) by type of participant and level of training. Practicing genetic counselors and physicians were more selective in their recommendations for prenatal ES than laboratory scientists. Genetic counseling students and practicing genetic counselors felt similarly about indications for the use of prenatal ES, whereas medical students were more liberal in their recommendations for prenatal ES than practicing physicians. This study shows a lack of consensus among the medical community regarding the clinical utility and indications for prenatal ES.
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.