ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Navigating Pharmacogenomic Testing in Practice: Who to Test and When to Test.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting Problems and Adhering to Standards: A Pathway to Uniform Clinical Laboratory Processes that Maximize the Benefits of Pharmacogenomics.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of genome-guided statin treatment for hypercholesterolemia.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2026Review
- The role of pharmacogenomics in the discontinuation of psychotropic medication: a scoping review protocol.HRB open research · 2026Article
- Progress in Pharmacogenomics Implementation in the United States: Barrier Erosion and Remaining Challenges.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Pharmacogenetics in Tuberculosis-HIV Coinfected Populations: A Systematic Review of Genetic Variants Influencing Antiretroviral and Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Response.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is increasing attention on the clinical utility and value of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing to individualize medication management. Most clinical practice guidelines from medical professional societies do not recommend routine PGx testing, with a few key exceptions. Inconsistent recommendations across clinical practice guidelines, FDA product labeling, and payer reimbursement policies have hampered widespread adoption of testing. Multiple resources exist to aid in the adoption and use of actionable PGx test results in clinical practice; however, most of these resources do not provide guidance on who should receive PGx testing and when-a critical question the clinical community continues to struggle with. There are multiple considerations when answering this question beyond the clinical validity of the drug-gene interaction itself, such as the actionable result frequency, severity of the adverse clinical outcome, predictive power of the PGx test, suitability of alternative treatments, cost, and turnaround time of test results. This perspective discusses these considerations and models for testing including preemptive screening, pretreatment testing, and reactive testing, highlighting advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The authors provide their perspectives on identifying candidates for PGx testing in the current real-world environment and how that differs from a clinically ideal scenario.
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.