ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026
Not all information is equally important: informed consent to genetic testing for hereditary cancer.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInformed consent in medical care is supposed to guarantee patient autonomy. However, in practice, written consent is often inadequate for this purpose: In an effort to meet legal requirements, consent forms are often comprehensive and complex. They cover all information that could potentially be relevant, possibly overwhelming patients rather than addressing their concerns. Thus, there is an urgent need for more patient-centered consent forms. As a first step toward this goal, this study assessed the importance of various aspects of consent to genetic testing from the patients' perspective.
methodsA cross-sectional online study was conducted with 224 participants at elevated risk for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. Participants rated the importance of 14 aspects typically covered on the consent form. Each aspect was compared with all other aspects using multiple contrast tests for repeated measures. Participants also provided hypothetical consent to each aspect. Voluntary comments to the consent aspects were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsAlthough the majority of consent aspects were rated important in absolute terms, we observed relative differences. Specifically, consent aspects reflecting a clinical benefit for the patient and her family were rated as more important relative to all other aspects. This included, for example, consent to receiving additional test results which could imply further clinical consequences.
conclusionOur results may inform the communication between patients and their counseling physicians prior to genetic testing. They also provide an empirical basis for revising consent forms to better align with patients' needs while remaining legally sound.
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.