Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37873214›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023

Divergence Between Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Polygenic Embryo Screening: A Qualitative Study.

Dorit Barlevy, Ilona Cenolli, Tiffany Campbell, Remy Furrer, Meghna Mukherjee, Kristin Kostick-Quenet, Shai Carmi, Todd Lencz, Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz, Stacey Pereira

Open access · greenAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Dorit BarlevyCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Ilona CenolliCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Tiffany CampbellCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Remy FurrerCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Meghna MukherjeeSociology Department, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Kristin Kostick-QuenetCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Shai CarmiBraun School of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Todd LenczInstitute of Behavioral Science, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY.
Gabriel Lazaro-MunozCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Stacey PereiraCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Harvard University · USBaylor College of Medicine · USHebrew University of Jerusalem · ILNorthwell Health · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

Polygenic Embryo Screening: Towards Informed Decision-MakingR01HG011711 · NHGRI · FEINSTEIN INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH · PI CARMI, SHAI, LAZARO-MUNOZ, GABRIEL · 2021 to 2025
$6.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG011711
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To explore and compare the perspectives of clinicians and patients on polygenic embryo screening. Design: Qualitative. Subjects: Fifty-three participants: 27 reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and 26 patients currently undergoing in vitro fertilization or had done so within the last five years. Main Outcome Measures: Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Results: Both clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more often than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer polygenic embryo screening to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in polygenic embryo screening. Both sets of stakeholders envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of polygenic embryo screening; the most common included selection and/or prioritization of embryos, receipt of more information about embryos, and preparation for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" child. Both sets of stakeholders also raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about polygenic embryo screening. The most common concerns among both sets of stakeholders included the potential for different types of "biases" - most often in relation to selection of embryos with preferred genetic chances of traits -, the probabilistic nature of polygenic embryo screening that can complicate patient counseling and/or lead to excessive cycles of in vitro fertilization, and a lack of data from long-term prospective studies supporting the clinical use of polygenic embryo screening. Conclusion: Despite patients' interest in polygenic embryo screening, clinicians feel such screening is premature for clinical application. Though now embryos can be screened for their genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits, many clinicians and patients maintain different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by these stakeholders may help guide professional societies as they consider developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of polygenic embryo screening, which is already commercially available.

Indexed as

polygenic embryo screeningpolygenic preimplantation genetic testingqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID37873214
PMCPMC10592985
OpenAlexW4387613993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.