Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37214496›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

A randomized controlled trial of analogue pharmacogenomic testing feedback for psychotropic medications.

John Young, Aileen Jimenez, Madeline Pruett, Laken Hancock, McCall Schruff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John YoungUniversity of Mississippi, Department of Psychology, 207 Peabody Hall, University, MS 38677, USA.
Aileen JimenezUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Pharmacy, 301 Pharmacy Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Madeline PruettUniversity of Mississippi, Department of Psychology, 207 Peabody Hall, University, MS 38677, USA.
Laken HancockUniversity of Mississippi, Department of Psychology, 207 Peabody Hall, University, MS 38677, USA.
McCall SchruffUniversity of Mississippi, Department of Psychology, 207 Peabody Hall, University, MS 38677, USA.
University of Mississippi · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To examine the impact of various presentations of pharmacogenomic testing results using a published, color-coded decision support tool (DST) format as a standard stimulus to list possible medications. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to groups and asked to decide which psychotropic medication they would prefer if depressed. Three of the groups varied the color-coded category of fluoxetine and received a statement indicating that this was the most prescribed drug for depression. A fourth control condition omitted base rate information. Participants also provided detail about their decision-making processes through a qualitative interview. Results: Comparison of the first three groups indicated that significantly more participants selected medications from the highest category of likely effectiveness when fluoxetine appeared in this list. Comparison of the control group to its relevant analogue suggested no significant differences in selection strategy. Qualitative interview responses indicated participant comfort with genetic testing despite awareness of having very limited understanding of these techniques and their implications. Conclusions: Both DST color-coding and base rates were influential in driving drug selection decisions, despite most participants indicating they did not understand this information. Innovation: Efforts to standardize pharmacogenomic stimuli may lead to advances in methods of studying quantifiable healthcare decisions. Attention to the context for presenting test results may also be a useful source of understanding patient responses, particularly regarding complex tests that are likely to be interpreted heuristically.

Indexed as

Clinical feedbackMedical decision-makingPatient interactionPharmacogenomic testingPsychotropics

Identifiers

PMID37214496
PMCPMC10194257
OpenAlexW4313215287

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.