ArticleScientific reports2024
A nationwide cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia for the assessment of understanding and practices of clinicians towards personalized genetic testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Non-genetic physicians' self-assessment of knowledge and confidence toward genetic testing and counseling: a national survey in a high consanguineous population.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Public awareness, attitudes, and concerns regarding pharmacogenomics in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: an exploratory online cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to plan and facilitate the culture of personalized / precision medicine in medical practices within any healthcare institution, it is requisite for healthcare professionals like clinicians to have a clear understanding and approach towards the practices of personalized genetic testing. This nationwide cross-sectional study aimed to measure the perceptions and knowledge of clinicians towards personalized genetic testing and assess their current practices of personalized genetic testing in clinical settings through an online self-administered questionnaire in Saudi Arabia. The results of the study revealed that almost two-fifths of participants were responsible for ordering genetic tests directly (39.0%). The main concerns of the participants were the lack of clinical practice guidelines on personalized genetic tests (50.0%) and the cost of these tests (50.9%). The participants revealed that the genetic tests had influenced the patients' treatment plans (50.0%) and helped them understand the risks of their patients' disorders (52.3%). The study revealed a gap in understanding and implementing personalized genetic testing in Saudi Arabia, with enthusiasm tempered by challenges like insufficient knowledge, lack of guidelines, and practical applications' barriers. Effective integration of genetic testing into clinical practice should focus on enhancing medical education, developing clinical guidelines, and improving patient awareness about genetic tests that can lead to an improved personalized healthcare approach.
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.