ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Attitudes Toward Glaucoma Genetic Risk Assessment in Unaffected Individuals.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uptake of Polygenic Risk Testing for Glaucoma in Unaffected Individuals.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Progress in Translating Glaucoma Genetics Into the Clinic: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Development and evaluation of patient-centred polygenic risk score reports for glaucoma screening.BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes towards polygenic risk testing for glaucoma.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Impact of polygeNic risk score for glaucoma on psycHosocial ouTcomes (INSiGHT) study protocol.PloS one · 2024Article
- The future is precision medicine-guided diagnoses, preventions and treatments for neurodegenerative diseases.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Integrating polygenic risk scores (PRS) into healthcare has the potential to stratify an individual's risk of glaucoma across a broad population. Glaucoma is the most common cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, therefore effective screening for glaucoma endorsed by the population is highly important. This study assessed the attitude of unaffected individuals toward PRS testing for glaucoma, and sought to identify factors associated with interest in testing. Methods: We surveyed 418 unaffected individuals including 193 with a first-degree relative with glaucoma, 117 who had a recent eye examination, and 108 general members of the community. Results: Overall, 71.3% of the individuals indicated an interest in taking a polygenic risk test for glaucoma. Interest was more likely in those who believed glaucoma to be a severe medical condition (odds ratio [OR] = 14.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15-185.50, P = 0.039), those concerned about developing glaucoma (OR = 4.37, 95% CI = 2.32-8.25, P < 0.001), those with an intention to take appropriate measures regarding eye health (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.16-4.95, P = 0.019), and those preferring to know if considered to be at-risk or not (OR = 4.52, 95% CI = 2.32-8.83, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results show strong interest in genetic risk assessment for glaucoma among unaffected individuals in Australia. Translational Relevance: These findings represent a valuable assessment of interest in glaucoma polygenic risk testing among potential target populations, which will be integral to the implementation and uptake of novel PRS-based tests into clinical practice.
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.