ReviewNature medicine2025
Determining the value of genomics in healthcare.
Review in Nature medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Caring for Rare Genetic Disease: A Vision for the Future.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Our Future Health and the next generation of population medicine.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Phenomic profiles and disease patterns of 1.9 million participants from Our Future Health.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of Global Kidney Genetics Clinic Models and Outcomes.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Scaling up genomic newborn screening: implementation lessons from the BabyScreen+ study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Preparing healthcare providers to use polygenic risk scores: a qualitative study of learning needs and educational preferences.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Mainstreaming genomic testing for mitochondrial disease in Australia.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Harnessing health economic evaluation for policy and practice.Communications medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As genomic sequencing transitions into mainstream healthcare, critically appraising its value is key to informing evidence-based policy, practice and implementation strategies. Assessing the value of genomics is challenging, as traditional evaluation methods and frameworks do not capture many of the outcomes of genomics. This includes the personal value that genomic information provides individuals and family members, and the potential to reuse sequencing data to improve clinical care and drive research. Evaluation is hampered by lack of standardized outcome measures, small sample sizes, and uncertainties arising from the evolving nature of the technology, its applications and associated costs. Complex health system factors further influence real-world utilization and the value of genomic technologies and services within resource-constrained settings. In this Review, we discuss the need for robust yet agile approaches to evaluating genomic technologies that are dynamically informed by real-world data, and we provide examples of emerging methods and best practices. We emphasize the need for a whole-of-system approach and the need to further advance evaluation and implementation methods, to support health systems to sustainably and equitably integrate genomics into clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41310283What 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.