Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39362754›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical genetics2024

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing.

Elaine Suk-Ying Goh, Lauren Chad, Julie Richer, Yvonne Bombard, Chloe Mighton, Ron Agatep, Melanie Lacaria, Blaine Penny, Mary Ann Thomas, Ma'n H Zawati and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

13 authors.

Elaine Suk-Ying GohLaboratory Medicine and Genetics, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada elaine.goh@thp.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-2477-1665
Lauren ChadThe Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0468-6663
Julie RicherMedical Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0009-0009-3510-0697
Yvonne BombardGenomics Health Services Research Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Chloe MightonGenomics Health Services Research Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ron AgatepGenomics, Shared Health Diagnostic Services, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Melanie LacariaNewborn Screening Ontario, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2249-063X
Blaine PennyLumiio, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Mary Ann ThomasDepartments of Medical Genetics and Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ma'n H ZawatiHuman Genetics, Centre of Genomics and Policy - McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Julie MacFarlaneScreening Programs, Perinatal Services BC, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Anne-Marie LabergeDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Tanya N NelsonGenome Diagnostics, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5344-3516

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in technology and knowledge have facilitated both an increase in the number of patient variants reported and variants reclassified. While there is currently no duty to recontact for reclassified genetic variants, there may be a responsibility. The purpose of this clinical practice advisory document is to provide healthcare practitioners guidance for recontact of previously identified and classified variants, suggest methods for recontact, and principles to consider, taking account patient safety, feasibility, ethical considerations, health service capacity and resource constraints. The target audience are practitioners who order genetic testing, follow patients who have undergone genetic testing and those analysing and reporting genetic testing.

methodsA multidisciplinary group of laboratory and ordering clinicians, patient representatives, ethics and legal researchers and a genetic counsellor from the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors reviewed the existing literature and guidelines on responsibility to recontact in a clinical context to make recommendations. Comments were collected from the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Education, Ethics, and Public Policy, Clinical Practice and Laboratory Practice committees, and the membership at large.

resultsFollowing incorporation of feedback, and external review by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors and patient groups, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. The CCMG is the Canadian organisation responsible for certifying laboratory and medical geneticists who provide medical genetics services, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada.

conclusionThe document describes the ethical and practical factors and suggests a shared responsibility between patients, ordering clinician and laboratory practitioners.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingAdvisory CommitteesCanadaDuty to RecontactGenetic CounselingGenetics, MedicalHumansDelivery of Health CareGenetic Testing

Identifiers

PMID39362754
PMCPMC11672037

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.