ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2022
Views of reproductive genetic carrier screening participants regarding screening for genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of sample type on genetic testing completion in pediatric congenital hearing loss patients.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Prospective parents' views on reproductive genetic carrier screening: "You know better, you do better".Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Expanded carrier screening for inherited genetic disease using exome and genome sequencing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Unpacking the notion of "serious" genetic conditions: towards implementation in reproductive decision-making?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Views of reproductive genetic carrier screening participants regarding screening for genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss.Prenatal diagnosis · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveReproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) panels often include genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL) despite a lack of evidence of acceptability. Although some couples take steps to avoid having a child who is deaf, there are effective interventions for children who are deaf. There is no consensus whether deafness is considered a disabling condition.
methodThis study explored views of people who had RGCS, without genes for NSHL, about this topic. Online surveys were sent to 2186 people who had a low chance RGCS result and 655 completed the survey (participation rate 30%).
resultsSixty-three percent (N = 412) think deafness is a serious health condition. The majority agreed (60%, N = 391) that with support (i.e. hearing aids/cochlear implants) deafness is a minor condition in children. Most (84%, N = 545) agreed genes for NSHL should be included in RGCS. Thirty-five percent (N = 231) indicated they would make different reproductive decisions if they had an increased chance of having a child born deaf; 31% would not change their reproductive plans and 34% were unsure what they would do.
conclusionWhile the majority support inclusion of genes associated with NSHL in RGCS, there was uncertainty about the severity of deafness as a health condition and there was no consensus on whether it is a health condition that warrants changing reproductive decisions.
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.