Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35834113›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2022

Variation among DNA banking consent forms: points for clinicians to bank on.

Samuel J Huang, Laura M Amendola, Darci L Sternen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Samuel J HuangDivision of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. huangsam@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8464-8503
Laura M AmendolaDivision of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Darci L SternenDepartment of Laboratories, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

Medical Genetics Training GrantT32GM007454 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Gail Pairitz Jarvik, Andrew Ben Stergachis · 1985 to 2026
$6.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS 5T32GM007454NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007454
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) banking is an important laboratory service that preserves the option of future genetic testing. DNA bank consent forms are a critical tool to facilitate thorough and valid informed consent. The objectives of this study were to assess the level of consistency of current clinical DNA banking consent forms with the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidance and to explore variation among the forms. The content analysis matrix included key points identified from the ASHG and ACMG documents (including benefits/risks, sample storage, access, disposition, and communication) and additional points beyond the ASHG and ACMG documents identified from the consent forms themselves during the analysis process. Forms were assessed for language addressing each point. Five consent forms were identified and analyzed for twelve key points and eight additional points. The average consistency for key points was 10.8/12 (range 8/12 to 12/12). The range for additional points was 1/8 to 5/8. There was variation across forms in the details provided related to key and additional points. Gaps in clinical DNA banking consent forms are barriers to achieving informed consent. Clinicians can consider the consent key and additional points discussed here to supplement and enrich their clinical DNA banking informed consent discussions, promote stewardship, and maximize downstream utility of banked DNA. The identification of multiple additional points beyond the ASHG and ACMG documents' key points indicates a need for this guidance to be updated.

Indexed as

BiobankingDNA bankingInformed consentStewardship

Identifiers

PMID35834113
PMCPMC9314484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.