SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Defining ethical criteria to guide the expanded use of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS): Lessons about severity from preimplantation genetic testing.
Synthesis in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reevaluating 'seriousness' in genetic conditions: balancing clinical criteria and lived experiences.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Editorial: severity in a genomic age.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Integrating large language models into medical undergraduate laboratory course to enhance bioethical competence: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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
Abstract
We hypothesized that ethical criteria that guide the use of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) could be used to inform policies about expanded use of non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). We used a systematic review of reasons approach to assess ethical criteria used to justify using (or not using) PGT for genetic conditions. Out of 1135 identified documents, we retained and analyzed 216 relevant documents. Results show a clear distinction in acceptability of PGT for medical vs. non-medical conditions. Criteria to decide on use of PGT for medical conditions are largely based on their severity, but there is no clear definition of "severity". Instead, characteristics of the condition that relate to severity are used as sub-criteria to assess severity. We found that characteristics that are used as sub-criteria for assessing severity include monogenic etiology, high penetrance, absence of treatment, early age of onset, shortened lifespan, and reduced quality of life. Consensus about the use of PGT is highest for conditions that meet most of these criteria. There is no consensus around the acceptability of using PGT to detect non-medical conditions. We propose that the same severity criteria could be used by policymakers to assess the acceptability of using other genetic tests in screening and practice, including for the use of NIPS for additional conditions as indications broaden.
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.