ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Knowledge, attitudes and demand toward cardiovascular polygenic risk testing in clinical practice: cross-sectional survey of patients.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polygenic Modulation of Monogenic Diseases: Familial Hypercholesterolemia as the Exemplar.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- What's new in April's EJHG?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to assess patients' prior exposure and current level of knowledge of polygenic risk scores (PRSs). We also explored reactions to receiving a high-risk or low-risk score, and gauged the overall attitudes and demand patients have with regards to PRSs. We developed an online investigator-designed survey based on existing validated tools in genetic testing. There were two versions of the survey, one including a hypothetical high-risk PRS and one with a low-risk PRS. This survey was distributed to patients attending a cardiovascular clinic for primary or secondary prevention. A total of 226 participants responded to the survey. 177 patients (79%) had not read nor heard about polygenic testing. 209 patients (93%) had never discussed polygenic testing with their health care professional (HCP). 208 patients (93%) had never received polygenic testing. The average score on the knowledge quiz was 2.47/10 [95% C.I. (2.17, 2.78)]. Participants that received a high-risk survey scored 20.52/35 [95% C.I. (16.14, 24.9)] with regards to negative emotions while low-risk survey participants scored 17.96/35 [95% C.I. (13.98, 21.94)] (p < 0.001). Participants that received a high-risk survey scored 12.42/15 [95% C.I. (10.43, 14.41)] for demand and low-risk survey participants scored 12.22/15 [95% C.I. (9.66, 14.78)] (p = 0.549). Patients have limited prior exposure and knowledge of PRSs. Compared to receiving a low-risk score, participants receiving a high-risk score have more negative emotions and feelings of uncertainty. Despite the lack of knowledge, and the high rate of negative emotions and uncertainty, demand for PRSs in cardiology practice is high.
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.