Literature DB >> 26059844

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

Elli G Gourna1, Natalie Armstrong1, Susan E Wallace1.   

Abstract

Return of incidental findings (IFs) from clinical sequencing has become a hotly debated topic over the past year. Efforts are being made by several bodies to provide guidance at both national and international levels; however, no studies comparing attitudes of experts across different countries have been published so far. Our goal was to investigate attitudes towards return of IFs from clinical sequencing across UK, USA and Greek experts. Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted with genetics and genomic experts with different backgrounds. Our study revealed more differences when experts were compared according to their professional background than their country. General principles guiding the decision-making and the feedback process were common across all experts but the details of integrating these tests might vary as different professionals reported different needs and attitudes.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26059844      PMCID: PMC4755374          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.132

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


  42 in total

1.  Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: "incidental findings," patient autonomy, and shared decision making.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Mark A Rothstein; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 56.272

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.  Call for prudence in whole-genome testing.

Authors:  C G van El; W J Dondorp; G M W R de Wert; M C Cornel
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  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

5.  Management of incidental findings in clinical genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Joel B Krier; Robert C Green
Journal:  Curr Protoc Hum Genet       Date:  2013

Review 6.  Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.

Authors:  Leslie G Biesecker; Robert C Green
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants.

Authors:  Jonathan M Kocarnik; Stephanie M Fullerton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Association of Researcher Characteristics with Views on Return of Incidental Findings from Genomic Research.

Authors:  Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jimmy Duong; Yuan Zhang; Jo Phelan; Abby Fyer; Robert Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-01-17       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Practices and policies of clinical exome sequencing providers: analysis and implications.

Authors:  Seema M Jamal; Joon-Ho Yu; Jessica X Chong; Karin M Dent; Jessie H Conta; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Incidental findings from clinical sequencing in Greece: reporting experts' attitudes.

Authors:  E G Gourna; N Armstrong; S E Wallace
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-07-22
View more
  6 in total

1.  Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate.

Authors:  Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Elfride De Baere; Ignaas Devisch
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  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

3.  Criteria for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome sequencing - a focus group study on professional practices and perspectives in Belgian genetic centres.

Authors:  Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Tania Moerenhout; Elfride De Baere; Ignaas Devisch
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 3.063

4.  Ethical values supporting the disclosure of incidental and secondary findings in clinical genomic testing: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Marlies Saelaert; Heidi Mertes; Tania Moerenhout; Elfride De Baere; Ignaas Devisch
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 5.  Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

Authors:  Michael P Mackley; Benjamin Fletcher; Michael Parker; Hugh Watkins; Elizabeth Ormondroyd
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings.

Authors:  Jude Emmanuel Cléophat; Michel Dorval; Zaki El Haffaf; Jocelyne Chiquette; Stephanie Collins; Benjamin Malo; Vincent Fradet; Yann Joly; Hermann Nabi
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 3.063

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.