Literature DB >> 22739341

To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts.

Gabrielle M Christenhusz1, Koenraad Devriendt, Kris Dierickx.   

Abstract

Any test that produces visual images or digital or genetic sequences will tend to produce incidental findings because more will be visible than what was originally sought. We conducted a systematic review of the ethical reasons presented in the literature for and against the disclosure of incidental findings arising in clinical and research genetics contexts. A search of electronic databases resulted in 13 articles included for systematic review. Articles presented reasons for and against disclosure, and reasons for proceeding with caution when making decisions about disclosure. One major recommendation of the reviewed articles is in favor of qualified disclosure: incidental findings with confirmed clinical utility where there is the possibility of treatment or prevention should be disclosed, with exceptions. A second type of recommendation is that disclosure should proceed with caution, especially in the context of new genetic technologies and genetic testing involving minors. It is also recommended that the number of possible incidental findings be limited even before genetic testing is carried out. Such a policy, which we advocate, would show preference for non-disclosure.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22739341      PMCID: PMC3573190          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  36 in total

Review 1.  Genetic screening.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Beth Tarini; Nancy A Press; James P Evans
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 2.  Needles in stacks of needles: finding disease-causal variants in a wealth of genomic data.

Authors:  Gregory M Cooper; Jay Shendure
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Categorizing genetic tests to identify their ethical, legal, and social implications.

Authors:  W Burke; L E Pinsky; N A Press
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001

4.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Yann Joly; Jacques Simard; Francine Durocher
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  The question not asked: the challenge of pleiotropic genetic tests.

Authors:  Robert Wachbroit
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  1998-06

Review 6.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants?

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Michelle M Mello; Steven Joffe
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  A timely arrival for genomic medicine.

Authors:  Alan N Mayer; David P Dimmock; Marjorie J Arca; David P Bick; James W Verbsky; Elizabeth A Worthey; Howard J Jacob; David A Margolis
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  71 in total

1.  Case Report: Direct Access Genetic Testing and A False-Positive Result For Long QT Syndrome.

Authors:  Sarah Predham; Sara Hamilton; Alison M Elliott; William T Gibson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review.

Authors:  Z Lohn; S Adam; P H Birch; J M Friedman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Secondary variants--in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification.

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Karin E M Diderich; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Marieke Joosten; Sam Riedijk; Robert Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Commentary for Special Issue of Prevention Science "Using Genetics in Prevention: Science Fiction or Science Fact?"

Authors:  Danielle M Dick
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2018-01

6.  Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing.

Authors:  Elli G Gourna; Natalie Armstrong; Susan E Wallace
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Hilde Van Esch; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2015-08

8.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process.

Authors:  Carmen Ayuso; José M Millán; Marta Mancheño; Rafael Dal-Ré
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.