ReviewJournal of genetic counseling2014
Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.
Review in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Returning Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Pooled it
- Impact of whole genome sequencing on the care pathway for patients with cancer of unknown primary.ESMO open · 2025Article
- Research participants' perspectives regarding the feedback of secondary findings-A cohort from the DDD-Africa study, South Africa.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Challenges Related to the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing for the Optimization of Drug Therapy.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2023Article
- Physicians' Attitudes and Ethical Obligations to Pharmacogenetic Testing.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- Genomic Contextualism: Shifting the Rhetoric of Genetic Exceptionalism.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2019Article
- "I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings.Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
- Article
- Genomic newborn screening: public health policy considerations and recommendations.BMC medical genomics · 2017Article
- How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2016Article
- Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Article
- Case Report: Direct Access Genetic Testing and A False-Positive Result For Long QT Syndrome.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
- Research participants in NGS studies want to know about incidental findings.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2015Article
- Genome-Wide Sequencing for Prenatal Detection of Fetal Single-Gene Disorders.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2015Review
- How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
- Institutional protocol to manage consanguinity detected by genetic testing in pregnancy in a minor.Pediatrics · 2015Article
- Screening and overdiagnosis: public health implications.Public health reviews · 2015Article
- Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2015Article
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
There are several unresolved challenges associated with the clinical application of genome-wide sequencing technologies. One of the most discussed issues is incidental findings (IF), which are defined as discoveries made as a result of genetic testing that are unrelated to the indication for the test. The discussion surrounding IF began in the context of research, which we have used to frame consideration of IF in the clinical context. There is growing consensus that analytically valid and medically actionable IF should be offered to patients, but whether and to what extent clinicians should disclose other kinds of IF is debated. While others have systematically reviewed the literature concerning genetic IF, previous reviews focus on ethical and research-related issues and do not consider the implications for the genetic counseling profession specifically. This review discusses the practical considerations, ethical concerns and genetic counseling issues related to IF, with a particular focus on clinical genome-wide sequencing. To date, the bulk of the literature with respect to IF in the clinical context consists of commentaries, reviews and case reports. There is a need for more empirical studies to provide a foundation for institutional protocols and evidence-based clinical practice standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23709124What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.