ArticleApplied & translational genomics2015
Patients' views on incidental findings from clinical exome sequencing.
Article in Applied & translational genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 4 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
60 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Approaches to Incorporation of Preferences into Health Economic Models of Genomic Medicine: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis and Conceptual Framework.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Pooled 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
- An electronic review of clinical outcomes after return of actionable genetic research results from a health system research biobank.European journal of medical genetics · 2025Trial
- Understanding the decision of parents to opt-out of medically actionable secondary findings offered through genome sequencing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- A randomized study of digital versus genetic counselor return of actionable genetic research results to biobank participants (RESPECT3 study).BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Global Perspectives on Managing Incidental and Secondary Findings in Genomic Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Policies, Implementation Challenges, and Stakeholder Perspectives.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- How people undergoing genomic sequencing interpret and react to varied secondary findings with limited actionability.Personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Use of Prenatal Exome Sequencing: Opinion Statement of the French Federation of Human Genetics Working Group.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Review
- Views of adults living with sickle cell disease on the theoretical return of secondary genomic findings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Development of a novel measure of advanced cancer patients' perceived utility of secondary germline findings from tumor genomic profiling.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Parents' Perspectives on Secondary Genetic Ancestry Findings in Pediatric Genomic Medicine.Clinical therapeutics · 2023Article
- Ophthalmic genetic counselling: emerging trends in practice perspectives in Asia.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- Targeted Whole Exome Sequencing in Children With Early-Onset Epilepsy: Parent Experiences.Journal of child neurology · 2022Article
- Widening the lens of actionability: A qualitative study of primary care providers' views and experiences of managing secondary genomic findings.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Parental motivations for and adaptation to trio-exome sequencing in a prospective prenatal testing cohort: Beyond the diagnosis.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Public interest in unexpected genomic findings: a survey study identifying aspects of sequencing attitudes that influence preferences.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article characterizes the opinions of patients and family members of patients undergoing clinical genomic-based testing regarding the return of incidental findings from these tests. Over sixteen months, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with individuals to explore their preferences regarding which types of results they would like returned to them. Responses indicate a diversity of attitudes toward the return of incidental findings and a diversity of justifications for those attitudes. The majority of participants also described an imperative to include the patient in deciding which results to return rather than having universal, predetermined rules governing results disclosure. The results demonstrate the importance of a patient centered-approach to returning incidental findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.