Literature DB >> 20118789

Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests.

Jeffrey R Botkin1, Steven M Teutsch, Celia I Kaye, Maxine Hayes, James E Haddow, Linda A Bradley, Kathleen Szegda, W David Dotson.   

Abstract

Genetic tests are increasingly available for use in traditional clinical practice settings and through direct-to-consumer marketing. The need for evidence-based information and guidance on their appropriate use has never been more apparent. The independent Working Group of the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Initiative commissions evidence-based reviews and develops recommendations to inform decision making surrounding the implementation of genetic tests and other applications of genomic technologies into clinical practice. A critical component of this analysis involves the identification and appropriate weighting of relevant health outcomes from genetic testing. Impacts of testing on morbidity and mortality are central considerations although research to document such outcomes can be challenging to conduct. In considering the broader impacts of genetic tests on the individual, familial and societal levels, psychosocial outcomes often take on increasing importance, and their systematic evaluation is a challenge for traditional methods of evidence-based review. Incorporating these types of outcomes in evidence-based processes is possible, however, and necessary to extract balanced and complete (or as complete as available data will allow) information on potential benefits and on potential harms. The framework used by the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group in considering, categorizing, and weighting health-related outcomes as applied to genomic technologies is presented here.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20118789     DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cdde04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  39 in total

1.  Consensus: a framework for evaluation of uncertain gene variants in laboratory test reporting.

Authors:  David K Crockett; Perry G Ridge; Andrew R Wilson; Elaine Lyon; Marc S Williams; Scott P Narus; Julio C Facelli; Joyce A Mitchell
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 11.117

Review 2.  The Routine Clinical use of Pharmacogenetic Tests: What it Will Require?

Authors:  Mafalda M Dias; Michael J Sorich; Andrew Rowland; Michael D Wiese; Ross A McKinnon
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 3.  Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Jennefer N Kohler; Erin Turbitt; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  The Pursuit of Noninvasive Diagnosis of Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Thomas Atwater; Christine M Cook; Pierre P Massion
Journal:  Semin Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.119

Review 5.  The perspective from EASAC and FEAM on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes.

Authors:  Robin Fears; Volker ter Meulen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 6.  Risk factors for autism: translating genomic discoveries into diagnostics.

Authors:  Stephen W Scherer; Geraldine Dawson
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 7.  The clinical utility of exome and genome sequencing across clinical indications: a systematic review.

Authors:  Salma Shickh; Chloe Mighton; Elizabeth Uleryk; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Yvonne Bombard
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-08-08       Impact factor: 4.132

8.  Perceived Benefits, Risks, and Utility of Newborn Genomic Sequencing in the BabySeq Project.

Authors:  Stacey Pereira; Jill Oliver Robinson; Amanda M Gutierrez; Devan K Petersen; Rebecca L Hsu; Caroline H Lee; Talia S Schwartz; Ingrid A Holm; Alan H Beggs; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 9.  Clinical utility of gene-expression signatures in early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Maryann Kwa; Andreas Makris; Francisco J Esteva
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 66.675

10.  How do researchers manage genetic results in practice? The experience of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Douglass Fisher; Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin; Sheri D Schully; Jan T Lowery; Dennis J Ahnen; Judith A Maskiell; Noralane M Lindor; John L Hopper; Terrilea Burnett; Spring Holter; Julie L Arnold; Steven Gallinger; Mercy Laurino; Mary-Jane Esplen; Pamela S Sinicrope
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2013-05-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.