Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37951889›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2023

Uncertain futures and unsolicited findings in pediatric genomic sequencing: guidelines for return of results in cases of developmental delay.

Candice Cornelis, Wybo Dondorp, Ineke Bolt, Guido de Wert, Marieke van Summeren, Eva Brilstra, Nine Knoers, Annelien L Bredenoord

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 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.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Candice CornelisDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. c.i.cornelis-12@umcutrecht.nl.
Wybo DondorpDepartment of Health, Ethics & Society, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ineke BoltDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Guido de WertDepartment of Health, Ethics & Society, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Marieke van SummerenDepartment of General Pediatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Eva BrilstraDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Nine KnoersDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Annelien L BredenoordJulius Center, Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMassively parallel sequencing techniques, such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), may reveal unsolicited findings (UFs) unrelated to the diagnostic aim. Such techniques are frequently used for diagnostic purposes in pediatric cases of developmental delay (DD). Yet policy guidelines for informed consent and return of UFs are not well equipped to address specific moral challenges that may arise in these children's situations. DISCUSSION: In previous empirical studies conducted by our research group, we found that it is sometimes uncertain how children with a DD will develop and whether they could come to possess capacities for autonomous decision-making in the future. Parents sometimes felt this brought them into a Catch-22 like situation when confronted with choices about UFs before undergoing WES in trio-analysis (both the parents' and child's DNA are sequenced). An important reason for choosing to consent to WES was to gain more insight into how their child might develop. However, to make responsible choices about receiving or declining knowledge of UFs, some idea of their child's future development of autonomous capacities is needed. This undesirable Catch-22 situation was created by the specific policy configuration in which parents were required to make choices about UFs before being sequencing (trio-analysis). We argue that this finding is relevant for reconfiguring current policies for return of UFs for WES/WGS and propose guidelines that encompass two features. First, the informed consent process ought to be staged. Second, differing guidelines are required for withholding/disclosing a UF in cases of DD appropriate to the level of confidence there is about the child's future developmental of autonomous capacities.

conclusionWhen combined with a dynamic consent procedure, these two features of our guidelines could help overcome significant moral challenges that present themselves in the situations of children undergoing genomic sequencing for clarifying a DD.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentParentsChildGenomicsHumansUncertaintyWhole Genome SequencingChildrenFuture autonomyGenomic sequencingReturn of resultsUnsolicited findings

Identifiers

PMID37951889
PMCPMC10640744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.