Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36370240›Full record

ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022

Considerations on the use of carrier screening testing in human reproduction: comparison between recommendations from the Italian Society of Human Genetics and other international societies.

Antonio Capalbo, Ilaria Gabbiato, Silvia Caroselli, Ludovica Picchetta, Pietro Cavalli, Fortunato Lonardo, Sebastiano Bianca, Emiliano Giardina, Daniela Zuccarello

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Antonio Capalbo *Juno Genetics, Valencia, Spain. antcapalbo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0109-323X
Ilaria Gabbiato *Department of Lab Medicine, Unit of Clinical Genetics and Epidemiology University Hospital of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Silvia CaroselliIgenomix Italia, Vicenza, Italy.
Ludovica PicchettaJuno Genetics, Valencia, Spain.
Pietro CavalliHumanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Fortunato LonardoUOSD Genetica Medica, AORN "San Pio" - P.O. "G. Rummo", Benevento, Italy.
Sebastiano BiancaGenetica Medica, ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy.
Emiliano GiardinaLaboratorio Di Medicina Genomica - UILDM Università Degli Studi Di Roma "Tor Vergata", Fondazione Santa Lucia-IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Daniela ZuccarelloDepartment of Lab Medicine, Unit of Clinical Genetics and Epidemiology University Hospital of Padova, Padua, Italy.
University of Padua · ITAzienda Ospedaliera G.Rummo · ITFondazione Santa Lucia · ITIgenomix · ITIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITOspedale Garibaldi · ITUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCarrier screening (CS) is a term used to describe a genetic test performed on individuals without family history of genetic disorders, to investigate the carrier status for pathogenic variants associated with multiple recessive conditions. The advent of next-generation sequencing enabled simultaneous CS for an increasing number of conditions; however, a consensus on which diseases to include in gene panels and how to best develop the provision of CS is far to be reached. Therefore, the provision of CS is jeopardized and inconsistent and requires solving several important issues.

methodsIn 2020, the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU) established a working group composed of clinical and laboratory geneticists from public and private fields to elaborate a document to define indications and best practice of CS provision for couples planning a pregnancy.

resultsHereby, we present the outcome of the Italian working group's activity and compare it with previously published international recommendations (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG)). We determine a core message on genetic counseling and nine main subject categories to explore, spanning from goals and execution to technical scientific, ethical, and socio-economic topics. Moreover, a level of agreement on the most critical points is discussed using a 5-point agreement scale, demonstrating a high level of consensus among the four societies.

conclusionsThis document is intended to provide genetic and healthcare professionals involved in human reproduction with guidance regarding the clinical implementation of CS.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingGenetic TestingAustraliaFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPregnancyReproductionCarrier screeningCost-effectivenessGenetic diseasesNGSReproductive autonomyReproductive riskWhole-exome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID36370240
PMCPMC9722986
OpenAlexW4308834849

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.