Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms.

European journal of human genetics : EJHG - 1 Dec 2018

Vears Danya F, Niemiec Emilia, Howard Heidi Carmen, Borry Pascal

Abstract excerpt

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Disclosure
Share to Genetic Counseling

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Genetic Predisposition to Disease

Share to Genetic Testing

Share to Genomics and Rare Diseases

Share to Informed Consent

Share to Polymorphism, Genetic

Share to Sequence Analysis, DNA

Source

Open in PubMed Open full text

Identifiers

PMID: 30143804
DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0239-7
PMCID: PMC6244391

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 5 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms.PMID 30143804Read ↗

Reporting practices for variants of uncertain significance from next generation sequencing technologies.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Reflecting on Earlier Experiences with Unsolicited Findings: Points to Consider for Next‐Generation Sequencing and Informed Consent in DiagnosticsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Understanding variations in secondary findings reporting practices across U.S. genome sequencing laboratoriesSemantic proximity Read ↗

Analysis of state laws on informed consent for clinical genetic testing in the era of genomic sequencing.Semantic proximity Read ↗

A Closer Look at the Recommended Criteria for Disclosing Genetic Results: Perspectives of Medical Genetic Specialists, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Board ChairsSemantic proximity Read ↗

How do consent forms for diagnostic high‐throughput sequencing address unsolicited and secondary findings? A content analysisSemantic proximity Read ↗

Variation among Consent Forms for Clinical Whole Exome SequencingSemantic proximity Read ↗

Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic researchSemantic proximity Read ↗

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: Challenges for clinical laboratory geneticistsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Managing the ethical challenges of next-generation sequencing in genomic medicineSemantic proximity Read ↗

Imprecision medicine: Systematic gaps in reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and their reclassifications.Semantic proximity Read ↗

The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review.Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.