Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39373866›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2024

Negative results from DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases: the recipients' experience.

Felicia Russo, Debanjana Chatterjee, Natalia DeMaria, Michelle E Florido, Maddalena Marasa, Maya Sabatello, Julia Wynn, Hila Milo Rasouly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2024. 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.

Felicia RussoDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Debanjana ChatterjeeDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Natalia DeMariaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Michelle E FloridoGenetic Counseling Graduate Program, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Maddalena MarasaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Maya SabatelloCenter for Precision Medicine and Genomics, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Julia WynnGenetic Counseling Graduate Program, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Hila Milo RasoulyDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. Hila.MiloRasouly@columbia.edu.

Funding

OMOP information model for eMERGE phenotypingU01HG008680 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Wendy K Chung, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 2015 to 2026
$13.3M
Advancing equitable implementation of genomic medicine in nephrologyK01DK132495 · NIDDK · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Hila Milo Rasouly · 2022 to 2026
$722k
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008680NHGRI NIH HHS U01HG008680NIDDK NIH HHS 5K01DK132495NIDDK NIH HHS K01 DK132495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA-based population screening for adult-onset diseases holds promise for advancing personalized medicine and improving public health. Yet as most individuals pursuing such screening receive negative results, the return of results process must ensure that negative results and their implications are clearly understood. We explored the experiences of adults who received negative results from such screening as part of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics consortium Phase 3 project (eMERGE-3) at Columbia University. In addition to a laboratory report and a standard counseling letter explaining the negative results, participants were randomized to receive (or not) a vignette explaining the results. A diverse cohort of 437 adult participants completed both baseline and post-result surveys. Many participants reported motivations that did not match the screening goals and included hope for diagnosis and family disease risk. A quarter of participants reported not feeling confident explaining their results to others (n = 105, 24%), and those who did not receive the vignette were less confident than those who did (29% versus 19% respectively; p-value = 0.02). Open-text responses about personal and family members' reactions to the results suggested that some perceived an exaggerated benefit from the negative result and might forgo more appropriate genetic testing. Our findings highlight the complexity of returning negative results and raise concerns that participants might forgo more suitable genetic testing. Future research is needed to compare the efficacy of different forms of ancillary materials on individuals' comprehension of negative results.

Indexed as

CommunicationComprehensionDNA-based population screeningEducationNegative results

Identifiers

PMID39373866
PMCPMC11645380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.