Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40282381›Full record

ReviewGenes2025

Ethical and Practical Considerations in Implementing Population-Based Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening.

Eva Van Steijvoort, Pascal Borry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eva Van SteijvoortCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 bus 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-3134-4028
Pascal BorryCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7 bus 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4931-9560

Funding

Research Fund Flanders G094518N
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) has emerged as a promising tool for identifying couples with an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with an autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic condition. By enabling early detection, RGCS has the potential to support informed reproductive decision-making. Historically, carrier screening initiatives aimed to decrease the prevalence of specific genetic disorders by targeting particular high-risk populations. More recently, there has been a shift towards offering RGCS for a wider range of conditions, with the goal of enhancing reproductive autonomy by facilitating informed decision-making and addressing inequities in access to healthcare interventions. However, this shift towards a more inclusive, population-based approach has raised questions about the tension between individual autonomy and public health goals, as well as concerns regarding the potential negative effects of large-scale genetic screening initiatives. Furthermore, there is growing interest in utilizing RGCS data for broader purposes, such as population-based genetic screening programs for hereditary cancers or identifying causes of unexplained infertility, which may present additional ethical considerations. This review explores the complexities surrounding the implementation of RGCS, with an emphasis on its objectives, the significance of informed decision-making, and the wider societal challenges it may present. By analyzing these interconnected factors, we aim to provide a thorough understanding of the potential implications of RGCS on both individual autonomy and societal dynamics.

Indexed as

Genetic Carrier ScreeningGenetic Diseases, InbornGenetic TestingDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleethicsgenetic carrier screeningimplementationinformed decision-makingreproduction

Identifiers

PMID40282381
PMCPMC12026641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.