Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36400022›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2022

A scoping review of guidelines for the use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry reveals widespread consensus but also points of ongoing disagreement.

Madelyn Mauro, Danielle S Allen, Bege Dauda, Santiago J Molina, Benjamin M Neale, Anna C F Lewis

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Management of Diabetic Feet.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Madelyn MauroEdmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Danielle S AllenEdmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Bege DaudaCenter for Global Genomics and Health Equity, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Institute of Clinical Bioethics, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Santiago J MolinaDepartment of Sociology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Benjamin M NealeBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA; Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Anna C F LewisEdmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA; Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: annalewis@fas.harvard.edu.

Funding

Statistical methods to localize disease heritability and identify biological mechanismsR37MH107649 · NIMH · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI Benjamin Michael Neale · 2019 to 2026
$7.0M
NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH107649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of population descriptors such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry in science, medicine, and public health has a long, complicated, and at times dark history, particularly for genetics, given the field's perceived importance for understanding between-group differences. The historical and potential harms that come with irresponsible use of these categories suggests a clear need for definitive guidance about when and how they can be used appropriately. However, while many prior authors have provided such guidance, no established consensus exists, and the extant literature has not been examined for implied consensus and sources of disagreement. Here, we present the results of a scoping review of published normative recommendations regarding the use of population categories, particularly in genetics research. Following PRISMA guidelines, we extracted recommendations from n = 121 articles matching inclusion criteria. Articles were published consistently throughout the time period examined and in a broad range of journals, demonstrating an ongoing and interdisciplinary perceived need for guidance. Examined recommendations fall under one of eight themes identified during analysis. Seven are characterized by broad agreement across articles; one, "appropriate definitions of population categories and contexts for use," revealed substantial fundamental disagreement among articles. Additionally, while many articles focus on the inappropriate use of race, none fundamentally problematize ancestry. This work can be a resource to researchers looking for normative guidance on the use of population descriptors and can orient authors of future guidelines to this complex field, thereby contributing to the development of more effective future guidelines for genetics research.

Indexed as

EthnicityProblem BehaviorAsian PeopleConsensusHumansResearch Personnelancestryethicsethnicitypopulation descriptorsracerecommendationsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID36400022
PMCPMC9808506

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.