SynthesisThe European journal of general practice2022
Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.
Synthesis in The European journal of general practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- US Immigrants and their Knowledge of their Family History of Cancer: A Population-Based Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- A feasibility study to collect three generation family histories using a patient completed questionnaire provided by a family physician.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Exploring current cancer screening practices and guidelines for adults under age 50 in the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- From awareness to action: a comparative study of family medical history and preventive health behaviors in Saudi Arabia and Syria.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Routine family history inquiry among family physicians: associations with perceived clinical usefulness and barriers: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Does Education Design Matter? Evaluating an Evidence-Based Continuing Education Intervention on Genomic Testing for Primary Care; a Pre-Test Post-Test Study.Journal of CME · 2025Article
- Usability, Engagement, and Report Usefulness of Chatbot-Based Family Health History Data Collection: Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Combining rare and common genetic variants improves population risk stratification for breast cancer.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Screening for Mutations in Hereditary Cancer Susceptibility Genes in a Region with High Endogamy in Brazil.Global medical genetics · 2023Article
- Expanding Family Health History to Include Family Medication History.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany medical family history (FH) tools are available for various settings. Although FH tools can be a powerful health screening tool in primary care (PC), they are currently underused.
objectivesThis review explores the FH tools currently available for PC and evaluates their clinical performance.
methodsFive databases were systematically searched until May 2021. Identified tools were evaluated on the following criteria: time-to-complete, integration with electronic health record (EMR) systems, patient administration, risk-assessment ability, evidence-based management recommendations, analytical and clinical validity and clinical utility.
resultsWe identified 26 PC FH tools. Analytical and clinical validity was poorly reported and agreement between FH and gold standard was commonly inadequately reported and assessed. Sensitivity was acceptable; specificity was found in half of the reviewed tools to be poor. Most reviewed tools showed a capacity to successfully identify individuals with increased risk of disease (6.2-84.6% of high and/or moderate or increased risk individuals).
conclusionDespite the potential of FH tools to improve risk stratification of patients in PC, clinical performance of current tools remains limited as well as their integration in EMR systems. Twenty-one FH tools are designed to be self-administered by patients.
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.