Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41189389›Full record

ReviewAnnals of laboratory medicine2026

Global Perspectives on Managing Incidental and Secondary Findings in Genomic Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Policies, Implementation Challenges, and Stakeholder Perspectives.

Jisook Yim, Kyung Sun Park, Eul-Ju Seo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jisook YimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9745-0731
Kyung Sun ParkDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6714-6619
Eul-Ju SeoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8247-3746

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid advancement of genome sequencing has increased the detection of incidental findings (IFs) and secondary findings (SFs), raising complex ethical and practical challenges in both clinical and research settings. This review examines policies, guidelines, and stakeholder perspectives on IF/SF across different jurisdictions, focusing on articles published between 2000 and 2024. We found significant variation in IF/SF reporting practices, reflecting different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. While the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics supports proactive SF reporting, European and Canadian policies adopt more conservative approaches. Stakeholder perspectives also varied; patients generally preferred receiving results, whereas healthcare professionals' support depended on factors including actionability and patient age. Particular challenges emerged in relation to pediatric cases, with ongoing debates about balancing future autonomy with potential medical benefits. Implementation barriers were identified across jurisdictions, including resource constraints, knowledge limitations, and a lack of standardized procedures. Despite consensus on the potential value of IF/SF reporting, inconsistencies in approaches and implementation challenges persist. Current evidence suggests the need for more sophisticated, context-sensitive frameworks that can accommodate different healthcare systems while maintaining consistent ethical standards. Further research is required to understand the long-term effects of different reporting approaches on patients, healthcare systems, and society.

Indexed as

Genetics, MedicalGenetic TestingGenomicsIncidental FindingsResearch DesignGlobal HealthHealth Plan ImplementationHealth PolicyHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicStakeholder ParticipationClinical implementationGenetic testingHealthcare policyIncidental findingsProfessional EthicsSecondary findings

Identifiers

PMID41189389
PMCPMC12698251

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.