SynthesisPrimary health care research & development2025
Considering family trees as a useful tool in family medicine: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Primary health care research & development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review of the purpose, design, and use of family trees by family physicians (FPs).
backgroundFamily trees offer a valuable contribution to understanding the relevance of the patient's family history in comprehensive primary healthcare provision. There is little research on the role of family trees in the everyday practice of FPs. Studies often focus on specific diseases and their context: however, a comprehensive exploration of the usefulness of family trees is crucial for FPs.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted through a keyword search in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria selected, 24 studies were identified and a qualitative analysis was performed.
findingsA total of 369 publications were identified across 32 fields. Twenty-four studies were included in the final analysis according to the QUOROM statement. The results underscore the role of family trees and highlight the value of this tool's multidimensionality. The use of this tool directs FPs to consider a genetic cause and a possible referral to a geneticist. The value of a family tree lies in the personalized patient-oriented treatment in connection with hereditary risks for chronic diseases. For FPs, the greatest challenge in treating patients is determining their risk of developing a chronic disease or cancer. Using a family tree can improve the quality of their healthcare.
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.