ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Population screening for genetic susceptibility to disease.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic tests as prophecy: understanding self-defeating and self-fulfilling mechanisms in (predictive) genetic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Genetic counselling for personalised medicine.Human genetics · 2011Article
- Genetic screening: A primer for primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2010Review
- Appraising organised screening programmes for testing for genetic susceptibility to cancer.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- Tensions between policy makers and general practitioners in implementing new genetics: grounded theory interview study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999Review
- Social and psychological issues associated with the new genetics.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 1997Review
- Lay understanding of genetic disease: a British study of families attending a genetic counseling service.Journal of genetic counseling · 1995Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic screening for susceptibility to common diseases, such as the common cancers, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, may soon be technically feasible. Commercial interests should not be allowed to introduce such screening before proper evaluation or without adequate counselling and support. The evaluation of such testing should include psychosocial and medical outcomes and outcomes for those given low risks as well as high risks. These tests may distract attention away from environmental factors contributing to disease, for which social and political measures may be more appropriate than individualised susceptibility screening and lifestyle modification.
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.