Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep;22(9):1100-4.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.290. Epub 2014 Jan 15.

Managing clinically significant findings in research: the UK10K example

Collaborators, Affiliations

Managing clinically significant findings in research: the UK10K example

Jane Kaye et al. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014 Sep.

Abstract

Recent advances in sequencing technology allow data on the human genome to be generated more quickly and in greater detail than ever before. Such detail includes findings that may be of significance to the health of the research participant involved. Although research studies generally do not feed back information on clinically significant findings (CSFs) to participants, this stance is increasingly being questioned. There may be difficulties and risks in feeding clinically significant information back to research participants, however, the UK10K consortium sought to address these by creating a detailed management pathway. This was not intended to create any obligation upon the researchers to feed back any CSFs they discovered. Instead, it provides a mechanism to ensure that any such findings can be passed on to the participant where appropriate. This paper describes this mechanism and the specific criteria, which must be fulfilled in order for a finding and participant to qualify for feedback. This mechanism could be used by future research consortia, and may also assist in the development of sound principles for dealing with CSFs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Depiction of the UK10K Management Framework, consisting of four stages.

References

    1. Parker LS. The future of incidental findings: should they be viewed as benefits. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36:341–351. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Knoppers BM, Deschenes M, Zawati MH, Tasse AM. Population studies; return of research results and incidental findings. Policy statement. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;14:1170–1178. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, et al. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:210–213. - PubMed
    1. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–574. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bovenberg J, Meulenkamp T, Smets E, Gevers S. Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. Eur J Health Law. 2009;16:229–247. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources