Literature DB >> 23166054

Incidental findings in genetic research and clinical diagnostic tests: a systematic review.

Leigh Jackson1, Lesley Goldsmith, Anita O'Connor, Heather Skirton.   

Abstract

Incidental findings arise when clinically relevant genetic information about a research participant or patient is identified outside the scope of the original research objective or diagnostic test being performed. These findings can relate to carrier status for a heritable condition, misattributed paternity or increased susceptibility to a medical condition. The decision whether to disclose these findings to the research subject or patient is underpinned by many ethical, moral, and potentially legal considerations. There is an urgent need for definitive guidelines for researchers and healthcare professionals. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature concerning the disclosure of incidental findings, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations, using the prescribed flowchart and checklist. At initial screening, 473 articles were retrieved. The inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at obtaining data that were relevant and of sufficient quality were applied and a total of four relevant studies were identified, comprising 2,680 individual participants and 1,023 guidance documents. Major themes emerging from the included articles include patient autonomy, patient welfare, harmful secrets, and genetic literacy. The lack of relevant studies emphasizes the urgent need for empirical investigations into the disclosure or non-disclosure of genetic incidental findings, and the provision of guidelines to assist healthcare professionals and researchers.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23166054     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35615

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  21 in total

1.  Current Controversies in Prenatal Diagnosis 2: NIPT results suggesting maternal cancer should always be disclosed.

Authors:  Peter Benn; Sharon E Plon; Diana W Bianchi
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 3.050

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.  Availability of treatment drives decisions of genetic health professionals about disclosure of incidental findings.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Michelle M Wiest; Jane L Halliday; David J Amor; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings.

Authors:  Georgina Spies; Jolynne Mokaya; Jacqui Steadman; Nicole Schuitmaker; Martin Kidd; S M J Hemmings; Jonathan A Carr; Helena Kuivaniemi; Soraya Seedat
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2020-11-20

Review 5.  Paediatric genomics: diagnosing rare disease in children.

Authors:  Caroline F Wright; David R FitzPatrick; Helen V Firth
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 53.242

6.  Research participants in NGS studies want to know about incidental findings.

Authors:  Anne Marie Jelsig; Niels Qvist; Klaus Brusgaard; Lilian Bomme Ousager
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes.

Authors:  Carlos J Gallego; Caroline S Bennette; Patrick Heagerty; Bryan Comstock; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki Hisama; Laura M Amendola; Robin L Bennett; Michael O Dorschner; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; William M Grady; S Malia Fullerton; Susan B Trinidad; Dean A Regier; Deborah A Nickerson; Wylie Burke; Donald L Patrick; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Acceptability of, and Information Needs Regarding, Next-Generation Sequencing in People Tested for Hereditary Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Ben Storey; Veronica Quinn; Belinda Rahman; Lesley Andrews
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Disclosing Pleiotropic Effects During Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; Peter J Whitehouse; Charmaine D M Royal; Thomas O Obisesan; L Adrienne Cupples; Jacqueline A Vernarelli; Deepak L Bhatt; Erin Linnenbringer; Melissa B Butson; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Wendy R Uhlmann; Susan Hiraki; Na Wang; Robert Cook-Deegan; Robert C Green
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-26       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  Steven Joffe; Deborah E Sellers; Lynette Ekunwe; Donna Antoine-Lavigne; Sarah McGraw; Daniel Levy; Greta Lee Splansky
Journal:  Circ Genom Precis Med       Date:  2019-11-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.