ReviewCambridge prisms. Precision medicine2023
Maturing pharmacogenomic factors deliver improvements and cost efficiencies.
Review in Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- BioFRAM PGx, an Implementation Proposal for Pharmacogenetics in the Spanish National Health System.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Implementation of Pharmacogenomics Testing in Daily Clinical Practice: Perspectives of Prescribers from Two Canadian Armed Forces Medical Clinics.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Clinically actionable pharmacogenomic landscape of antidepressants and antipsychotics in Qatar: a population-based cohort study.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2025Article
- The Future of Pharmacogenomics: Integrating Epigenetics, Nutrigenomics, and Beyond.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical and economic outcomes of a pharmacogenomics-enriched comprehensive medication management program in a self-insured employee population.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2024Article
- IntroducingCambridge prisms. Precision 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An ever-expanding annotation of the human genome sequence continues to promise a new era of precision medicine. Advances in knowledge management and the ability to leverage genetic information to make clinically relevant, predictive, diagnostic, and targeted therapeutic choices offer the ability to improve patient outcomes and reduce the overall cost of healthcare. However, numerous barriers have resulted in a modest start to the clinical use of genetics at scale. Examples of successful deployments include oncologic disease treatment with targeted prescribing; however, even in these cases, genome-informed decision-making has yet to achieve standard of care in most major healthcare systems. In the last two decades, advances in genetic testing, therapeutic coverage, and clinical decision support have resulted in early-stage adoption of pharmacogenomics - the use of genetic information to routinely determine the safety and efficacy profile of specific medications for individuals. Here, through their complicated histories, we review the current state of pharmacogenomic testing technologies, the information tools that can unlock clinical utility, and value-driving implementation strategies that represent the future of pharmacogenomics-enabled healthcare decision-making. We conclude with real-world economic and clinical outcomes from a full-scale deployment and ultimately provide insight into potential tipping points for global adoption, including recent lessons from the rapid scale-up of high-volume test delivery during the global SARS-CoV2 epidemic.
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.