Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8907815›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Medical Association1995

Sickle cell screening policies as portent: how will the human genome project affect public sector genetic services?

D D Phoenix, S M Lybrook, R W Trottier, F C Hodgin, L A Crandall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Medical Association, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

D D PhoenixDepartment of Health Sciences, College of Nursing, Clemson University, South Carolina, USA.
S M Lybrook
R W Trottier
F C Hodgin
L A Crandall

Funding

NCRR NIH HHS RR03034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Human Genome Project holds much promise for providing dramatic improvements in our understanding of and means to diagnose and treat many diseases. As this enormously important endeavor proceeds, research on ethical, legal, and social implications of this new science is being conducted to forecast problems and recommend policy option solutions to avoid what might otherwise become adverse consequences. Sickle cell screening is an example of a technology that was introduced in a manner that raised poignant issues. On the basis of sickle cell issues, we examined policy issues likely to occur as new genetic technologies are incorporated into medical practice. Discussion and development of a national consensus on the appropriate content and just delivery of public sector genetic services is vital; otherwise, the impact of Human Genome Project-derived technology may result in misadventures that amplify problems currently evident in newborn screening programs. New DNA-based diagnostic technologies and therapies will soon enter the stream of commerce. The recommendations offered here, while based on examination of sickle cell disease policies, are intended to address both current inequities as well as potential future issues related to stigmatization and distributive justice.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalHealth PolicyHuman Genome ProjectAnemia, Sickle CellCivil RightsGenetic TestingGeorgiaHumansInfant, NewbornTruth DisclosureGenetics and Reproduction

Identifiers

PMID8907815
PMCPMC2607960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.