ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice2025
Disparities in Genetic Testing for Inborn Errors of Immunity.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Medicine in Rural Settings: Clinician Perspectives on Clinician-Ordered Genetic Testing.Research square · 2026Article
- Differences in immunoglobulin utilization when treating patients with primary immune disease in the United States.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic drivers of care disparity among patients with inborn errors of immunity.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Genetic landscape of Romanian children with inborn errors of immunity via gene panels, exome, and genome sequencing.Scientific reports · 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
backgroundInequities in genetic testing have been documented in a range of diseases, and no-charge genetic testing programs have been proposed as a means to enhance access. However, no studies have examined disparities in genetic testing for inborn errors of immunity (IEI) and the impact of no-charge programs on testing equity.
objectiveTo examine socioeconomic, geographic, and racial disparities in the uptake of genetic testing for IEI in the United States and the impact of a no-charge sponsored program on testing equity.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort analysis of (1) a national claims database capturing individuals with IEI (n = 18,603), and (2) data from a clinical genetic testing laboratory capturing patients with IEI participating in a no-charge sponsored program (n = 6,681) and a non-sponsored program (n = 29,579) for IEI genetic testing.
resultsAmong patients with IEI captured in the claims database, those residing in areas of greater deprivation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98), rural areas (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96), and non-White neighborhoods (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98) were less likely to undergo genetic testing. Participants in the sponsored IEI genetic testing program lived in areas of greater deprivation compared with the non-sponsored program (median, 46 vs 42; P < .001). However, historically excluded racial groups were underrepresented in both the sponsored and non-sponsored programs relative to disease burden.
conclusionsWe found significant disparities in genetic testing for IEI. Although eliminating the financial barriers to testing reduced socioeconomic disparities in genetic testing for IEI, racial disparities persisted. Further research is needed to address barriers to testing among underserved populations.
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.