ArticlePulmonary circulation2024
Unlocking the potential of genetic research in pulmonary arterial hypertension: Insights from clinicians, researchers, and study team.
Article in Pulmonary circulation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implicit ethical choices in ultra-rare therapy development: researchers' perspectives on patient selection and communication, therapy value, and accessibility.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- ERS Congress 2024: highlights from the Pulmonary Vascular Diseases Assembly.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Navigating family dynamics and ethical considerations in genetic diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension: insights from in-depth semi-structured interviews.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Genetics and precision genomics approaches to pulmonary hypertension.The European respiratory journal · 2024Review
- Unlocking the potential of genetic research in pulmonary arterial hypertension: Insights from clinicians, researchers, and study team.Pulmonary circulation · 2024Article
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
Genetic research and testing are increasingly important for understanding and treating pulmonary arterial hypertension. We aimed to explore how attitudes toward genetic research among clinical and research teams impacted the engagement in genetic research and the integration of genetic insights into clinical practice. We conducted 53 semistructured interviews and focus groups with patients, clinicians, and researchers from nine UK Pulmonary Hypertension centers, who had genetic research experience. Transcripts were thematically coded using inductive analysis. In this study, we focus on the researchers', clinicians', and study team's perspectives. From the interview data, several key themes emerged, ranging from study design, recruitment, and consent procedures to the return of individual genetic results. Additionally, participants reflected on both the successes of these studies and the future directions of genetic research. The analysis highlighted the critical importance of fostering collaborative networks firmly rooted in existing clinical and research infrastructure in rare disease study setups. Furthermore, the significance of trust-building, personalized communication, and transparency among stakeholders was underscored. The study offered valuable insights into the motivating and hindering factors to participant recruitment and consent procedures. Lastly, the findings gathered from processes surrounding the return of individual genetic results, genetic counselling, and the recruitment of relatives provided invaluable lessons regarding the integration of genetics into clinical practice. This in-depth analysis yields a crucial understanding of attitudes to genetic research among various stakeholders and sheds light on the complexities of genetic research and the evidence-practice gap.
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.