ArticleBMJ neurology open2026
Incorporating genetics and genetic counselling in neurology clinics: a survey of neurologists' perceptions and current practices.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Genetic Counselor Utilization Across Non-Genetics Departments for Neurodevelopmental Disorders.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeurogenetics has grown significantly in recent years, yet advances have not always been incorporated into clinical practice. In previous studies, neurologists reported limited confidence in ordering and interpreting genetic tests, implying a gap between genetic advances and their application in neurology. Genetic counsellors are uniquely trained to facilitate genetic testing, interpret results and provide psychosocial support, ultimately improving patient care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study, we assessed the utilisation of genetic testing and genetic counselling in neurology practice as well as neurologists' perceived value of genetic counsellors. We emailed a cross-sectional survey to board-certified neurologists practising in Arizona. Out of the 28 completed responses, most respondents had practised for more than 15 years and worked in urban settings, yet 68% did not have a genetic counsellor embedded into their clinic. We found that neurologists with more genetics training were more likely to order genetic testing and felt more comfortable performing genetic counselling roles (p=0.739, p=3.66×10⁻⁵). Additionally, greater years of experience in practice correlated with increased comfort performing genetic counselling roles (p=0.519, p=0.005). However, we found no significant relationship between physicians' level of genetics training or comfort performing genetic counselling roles and their perceived value of having a genetic counsellor in neurology settings, suggesting that many neurologists value genetic counsellors' role in neurology clinics. These results highlight the need for increased integration of genetic counsellors in neurology settings to enhance patient care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Arizona Institutional Review Board approved this study (STUDY00004930). Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained electronically, and all responses were anonymous.
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.