ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Assessing the unmet needs of genomic testing in Australia: a geospatial exploration.
Article 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.
- Mainstreaming genomic testing for mitochondrial disease in Australia.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Levers and constraints on general practitioners offering and managing reproductive genetic carrier screening in Australian primary care: a rich graphic of the complex context.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- What's new in April's EJHG?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The role of genomic testing in rare disease clinical management is growing. However, geographical and socioeconomic factors contribute to inequitable uptake of testing. Geographical investigations of genomic testing across Australia have not been undertaken. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the geospatial distribution of genomic testing nationally between remoteness areas, and areas of varying socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage. We requested patient postcodes, age, and test type from genomic testing records from seven Australian laboratories for a 6-month period between August 2019 and June 2022. Postcode data were aggregated to Local Government Areas (LGAs) and visualised geospatially. Data were further aggregated to Remoteness Areas and Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintiles for exploratory analysis. 11,706 records were eligible for analysis. Most tests recorded were paediatric (n = 8358, 71.4%). Microarray was the most common test captured (n = 8186, 69.9%). The median number of tests per LGA was 5.4 (IQR 1.0-21.0). Fifty-seven (10.4%) LGAs had zero tests recorded. Remoteness level was negatively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = -0.781, p < 0.001). However, remote areas recorded the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. SEIFA score positively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = 0.386, p < 0.001). The third SEIFA quintile showed the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. Our study establishes a foundation for ongoing assessment of genomic testing accessibility and equity and highlights the need to improve access to genomic testing for patients who are disadvantaged geographically or socioeconomically. Future research should include additional laboratories to achieve a larger representation of genomic testing rates nationally.
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.