ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2023
Opt-in for secondary findings as part of diagnostic whole-exome sequencing: Real-life experience from an international diagnostic laboratory.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting practices for secondary findings among ERN GENTURIS member institutions in 15 European countries.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Evaluating genome sequencing strategies: trio, singleton, and standard testing in rare disease diagnosis.Genome medicine · 2025Article
- Genetic landscape of Romanian children with inborn errors of immunity via gene panels, exome, and genome sequencing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Secondary Findings from Exome Sequencing of a Greek Cohort.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis-Should It Be Carried Out, and If So, How?Genes · 2024Article
- Newborn Screening for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: Patient Perspectives.Research square · 2024Article
- Opt-in for secondary findings as part of diagnostic whole-exome sequencing: Real-life experience from an international diagnostic laboratory.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscussion about the risks and benefits of offering secondary findings as part of genome-wide diagnostics lacks real-life data. We studied the opt-in decisions of patients/families referred to whole exome study (WES) in Blueprint Genetics (BpG), a genetic testing company with customers in over 70 countries to receive secondary findings. Based on the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recommendations for reporting secondary findings, BpG offered testing of specific actionable genes without additional charge for specimens submitted to WES diagnostics.
methodsIndividuals could opt-in for a secondary findings analysis by using a separate electronic consent form. Data from BpG database of electronic consent forms was used for the analysis.
resultsDuring the selected study period there were 3263 WES referrals, from which 2012 were index patients. About half of the individuals (50.4%) opted in to receiving secondary findings. Of patients who opted in, a secondary finding was detected for 2.7%, similar to other studies. We detected huge differences relating to opt-in between individuals from different countries; for instance, 90% of the 41 patients and their family members in Romania opted to receive secondary findings, while none of the 98 patients in Luxembourg chose that option.
conclusionDifferences between sexes or between children and adults were small. This data offers one view to the interest of patients and family members to opt in to receiving secondary findings. Research is needed to understand the influence of factors like age, education etc. and possible participation in pre-test counseling to receiving/not receiving secondary findings.
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.