ArticleGenetics in medicine open2025
Impact of genomic sequencing information on physicians' treatment recommendations for children with congenital heart disease.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly part of diagnostic evaluations of children with congenital heart disease (CHD). Past research suggests that clinicians might envision the most immediate benefits of GS to be guidance in decisions regarding withdrawal of care and rationing of scarce resources. This study sought to document whether providing GS information to physicians caring for critically ill children with CHD might lead them to alter recommendations regarding care strategies. Methods: A probability sample of 202 cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, neonatologists, and critical-care physicians who provide care for critically ill children with CHD in the United States, using the well-established vignette methodology, were randomly assigned different patient scenarios and different genomic information. Physicians then reported their likelihood of recommending particular treatment options for each patient. Results: Of the participating physicians, 98.3% had seen genetic test results, 84.5% had used results when making recommendations regarding clinical care, 67.5% had seen GS results, and 37.9% had used GS results when making treatment recommendations. In the survey experiments, receipt of GS results predicting intellectual disability, autism, or a childhood onset cancer syndrome each independently significantly reduced the likelihood of physicians recommending surgical palliation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or heart transplant. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that physicians caring for critically ill children with CHD might be influenced by genomic results when making recommendations about whether to forego or withdraw certain treatment options. This raises important ethical issues that should be considered carefully in the future.
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.