ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Patient and clinician perspectives on pharmacogenetic testing for antipsychotics.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Forensic Perspective of Unintentional Doping, Cardiovascular Health, and the Role of Nutrition in Competitive Sports.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Pharmacogenetic Variability and Quality of Life in Adolescent Patients with Schizophrenia: The Impact of Metabolizer Status, Symptom Severity, and Adverse Reactions to Antipsychotic Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background/objectives: Medications to treat psychosis (i.e., antipsychotics) have common and sometimes serious adverse drug reactions and can require several trials before finding a suitable drug and dose. To address this, there is increasing focus on personalizing medicine. Pharmacogenetics investigates how genetic variation influences drug metabolism and response, with recent clinical trials suggesting pharmacogenetic testing can improve remission and reduce adverse drug reactions. Therefore, understanding stakeholder perspectives on acceptability is critical. Methods: This pilot study is part of 'GEMS' (Genetics and Environment in Mental Health Study), which investigates pharmacogenetic testing for psychosis. A participant survey, co-created with patients, was completed by 22 patient-participants, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 clinician-participants who had used pharmacogenetic test reports with patients. Results: Both patients and clinicians were generally positive about pharmacogenetics, although clinicians saw this as just one component in the multifactorial process of individualized prescribing. Clinicians and patients both suggested a more user-friendly format of the pharmacogenetic report to enhance patient understanding. Some described the reports as promoting more collaborative care, but this was not universal. Clinicians highlighted both retrospective and prospective value in pharmacogenetics providing more certainty through reducing 'trial-and-error' prescribing. However, accessibility, understanding, and logistics were identified as potential barriers to implementation. Conclusion: Among patients and clinicians who have experienced pharmacogenetic testing to inform antipsychotic prescribing, acceptability is good. There is potential for pharmacogenetics to enhance personalized prescribing, but barriers to widespread implementation remain.
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.