ReviewJournal of genetic counseling2025
Race, ethnicity, and ancestry reporting in genetic counseling research: A focused mapping review and synthesis.
Review in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating genetic ancestry into clinical care: Accuracy, utility, and stakeholder views.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Race, ethnicity, and ancestry reporting in genetic counseling research: A focused mapping review and synthesis.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies on the use of Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry (REA) concepts and terms in genetic research are limited. We aimed to describe the collection, reporting, and use of REA data in genetic counseling research. We undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis of the Journal of Genetic Counseling 2021 publications. We used a mapping proforma based on the Race, Ethnicity, And Culture in Health checklist to extract data. Of the 177 screened articles, 132 met our inclusion criteria of reporting primary data about participants. The sample REA characteristics were described in 80 (61%) articles, with 6% providing a definition or conceptualization of the REA term/s used and 23% including a rationale for their study in terms of REA factors. Group labels were most often reported using population descriptors, such as "race," "ethnicity," "race/ethnicity," and "ancestry." Several group labels were used under different population descriptors. For instance, the group labels "White" and "Asian" were used under all population descriptors. Most studies (79%) ascertained REA characteristics by participants' self-report. Three (15%) of the 20 qualitative studies mentioned the relevance of the interviewers' REA characteristics in relation to the participants' REA characteristics. Of the 55 quantitative studies, 19 (35%) used REA factors in the data analysis. Of the 80 articles describing the sample REA characteristics, 20% referred moderately or a great deal to any REA factors in the results interpretation, 46% acknowledged the REA factors in the study limitations, and 15% discussed the implications of REA reporting for genetic counseling practice. Our review documents extensive variation in how sample REA characteristics are described and used in genetic counseling research. Our findings provide a baseline against which to evaluate the effects of guidelines and recommendations for the collection, responsible use, and report of participants' REA characteristics in genetic counseling research.
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.