Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests
- PMID: 20118789
- DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cdde04
Outcomes of interest in evidence-based evaluations of genetic tests
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.
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genomic profiling to assess cardiovascular risk to improve cardiovascular health.Genet Med. 2010 Dec;12(12):839-43. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181f872c0. Genet Med. 2010. PMID: 21042222
-
The EGAPP initiative: lessons learned.Genet Med. 2014 Mar;16(3):217-24. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.110. Epub 2013 Aug 8. Genet Med. 2014. PMID: 23928914 Review.
-
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 27820426
-
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2397-406. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.03.189. Epub 2003 Apr 11. J Clin Oncol. 2003. PMID: 12692171
Cited by
-
Child and family experiences with inborn errors of metabolism: a qualitative interview study with representatives of patient groups.J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016 Jan;39(1):139-47. doi: 10.1007/s10545-015-9881-1. Epub 2015 Jul 25. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016. PMID: 26209272 Free PMC article.
-
Introduction to the special section on genomics.Child Dev. 2013 Jan-Feb;84(1):6-16. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12045. Child Dev. 2013. PMID: 23350524 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Qualitative study of system-level factors related to genomic implementation.Genet Med. 2019 Jul;21(7):1534-1540. doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0378-9. Epub 2018 Nov 23. Genet Med. 2019. PMID: 30467402 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical utility of genomic sequencing: a measurement toolkit.NPJ Genom Med. 2020 Dec 15;5(1):56. doi: 10.1038/s41525-020-00164-7. NPJ Genom Med. 2020. PMID: 33319814 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Genetic testing: predictive value of genotyping for diagnosis and management of disease.EPMA J. 2011 Jun;2(2):173-9. doi: 10.1007/s13167-011-0077-y. Epub 2011 May 6. EPMA J. 2011. PMID: 23199147 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical