Literature DB >> 20347647

Clinical and public health implications of emerging genetic technologies.

Anne-Marie Laberge1, Wylie Burke.   

Abstract

The clinical utility of many emerging genetic technologies has yet to be established. For many new genetic tests, no practice guidelines are available to help clinicians decide when and how to use them in practice. The clinical and public health implications of new genetic technologies are easiest to evaluate when these tests are compared with other genetic tests, including those already well established in clinical practice. Genetic tests can be divided into different categories based on their intent as follows: (1) to establish a diagnosis (genetic diagnostic tests), (2) to classify disease processes to assist management (gene expression profiling), (3) to predict drug response or side effects (pharmacogenomic tests), and (4) to predict susceptibility to disease (genetic susceptibility testing). As new genetic tests emerge, their translation into practice will depend on their performance based on laboratory standards, but also on their ability to enhance prevention or assist clinicians in diagnosing and treating patients. This article reviews the clinical and public health implications of different types of genetic tests, the evaluation of genetic tests from a public health perspective, and the need for partnership to achieve the potential for benefit of new genetic technologies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20347647      PMCID: PMC2861484          DOI: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2010.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Nephrol        ISSN: 0270-9295            Impact factor:   5.299


  45 in total

1.  Genomic medicine: who will practice it? A call to open arms.

Authors:  A E Guttmacher; J Jenkins; W R Uhlmann
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001

Review 2.  Genetic test evaluation: information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; David Atkins; Marta Gwinn; Alan Guttmacher; James Haddow; Joseph Lau; Glenn Palomaki; Nancy Press; C Sue Richards; Louise Wideroff; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  A survey of chairpersons of departments of medicine about the current and future roles of clinical genetics in internal medicine.

Authors:  Matthew R G Taylor
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  A vision for the future of genomics research.

Authors:  Francis S Collins; Eric D Green; Alan E Guttmacher; Mark S Guyer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-04-14       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease types 1 and 2: assessment of US sensitivity for diagnosis.

Authors:  C Nicolau; R Torra; C Badenas; R Vilana; L Bianchi; R Gilabert; A Darnell; C Brú
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Empowering primary care health professionals in medical genetics: how soon? How fast? How far?

Authors:  K Greendale; R E Pyeritz
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001

7.  The position of the polycystic kidney disease 1 (PKD1) gene mutation correlates with the severity of renal disease.

Authors:  Sandro Rossetti; Sarah Burton; Lana Strmecki; Gregory R Pond; Jośe L San Millán; Klaus Zerres; T Martin Barratt; Seza Ozen; Vicente E Torres; Erik J Bergstralh; Christopher G Winearls; Peter C Harris
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 10.121

8.  Association of mutation position in polycystic kidney disease 1 (PKD1) gene and development of a vascular phenotype.

Authors:  Sandro Rossetti; Dominique Chauveau; Vickie Kubly; Jeffrey M Slezak; Anand K Saggar-Malik; York Pei; Albert C M Ong; Fiona Stewart; Michael L Watson; Erik J Bergstralh; Christopher G Winearls; Vicente E Torres; Peter C Harris
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-06-28       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Genome-wide association study of blood pressure and hypertension.

Authors:  Daniel Levy; Georg B Ehret; Kenneth Rice; Germaine C Verwoert; Lenore J Launer; Abbas Dehghan; Nicole L Glazer; Alanna C Morrison; Andrew D Johnson; Thor Aspelund; Yurii Aulchenko; Thomas Lumley; Anna Köttgen; Ramachandran S Vasan; Fernando Rivadeneira; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Xiuqing Guo; Dan E Arking; Gary F Mitchell; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Albert V Smith; Kent Taylor; Robert B Scharpf; Shih-Jen Hwang; Eric J G Sijbrands; Joshua Bis; Tamara B Harris; Santhi K Ganesh; Christopher J O'Donnell; Albert Hofman; Jerome I Rotter; Josef Coresh; Emelia J Benjamin; André G Uitterlinden; Gerardo Heiss; Caroline S Fox; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Eric Boerwinkle; Thomas J Wang; Vilmundur Gudnason; Martin G Larson; Aravinda Chakravarti; Bruce M Psaty; Cornelia M van Duijn
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2009-05-10       Impact factor: 38.330

10.  The practice of clinical genetics: a survey of practitioners.

Authors:  Beth A Pletcher; Ethan A B Jewett; William L Cull; Sarah E Brotherton; H Eugene Hoyme; Richard J D Pan; Holly J Mulvey
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  2 in total

1.  Genetic screening: The vista of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Rajiv Saini; Santosh Saini; Gagan Saini
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2011-01

2.  Are public health professionals prepared for public health genomics? A cross-sectional survey in Italy.

Authors:  Carolina Marzuillo; Corrado De Vito; Maddalena D'Addario; Paola Santini; Elvira D'Andrea; Antonio Boccia; Paolo Villari
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 2.655

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.