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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.