Defining purpose: a key step in genetic test evaluation.

Department of Medical History and Ethics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-7120, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 6.44). 11/2007; 9(10):675-81. DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318156e45b
Source: PubMed
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of predictive genomic information to improve medical care remains a contentious topic. However, it is generally agreed that the potential of genomics to improve medicine relies on medical care providers' ability to effectively communicate and put in context the meaning of test results. As the amount of information available increasingly outstrips providers' ability to offer qualified judgments on what the information means, consumers inevitably will be faced with test results of uncertain significance, as well as difficult questions about what they do or do not wish to know. Results of this survey of 64 primary care doctors in Estonia suggests that it may be inherently difficult for physicians to withhold genetic information obtained by genome scans or sequencing, even when they believe that having that information is not in the best interests of their patient. The descriptive data suggest introducing genomic medicine through primary care physicians, as proposed by the Estonian Genome Center of the University of Tartu, will require further genetics education as well as a carefully developed set of guidelines for determining where, when and how to use test results.
    Journal of Genetic Counseling 12/2011; 21(4):591-604. DOI:10.1007/s10897-011-9424-3 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advances in genetics and genomics have quickly led to clinical applications to human health which have far-reaching consequences at the individual and societal levels. These new technologies have allowed a better understanding of the genetic factors involved in a wide range of disorders. During the past decade, incredible progress has been made in the identification of genes involved in the normal process of hearing. The resulting clinical applications have presented consumers with new information and choices. Many of the same gene identification techniques are increasingly being applied to the investigation of complex disorders of speech and language. In parallel with gene identification, studies of the legal, ethical and psychosocial impacts of the clinical application of these advances and their influence on specific behaviors of individuals with communication disorders are paramount, but often lag behind. These studies will help to ensure that new technologies are introduced into clinical practice in a responsible manner. LEARNING OUTCOMES: As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to (1) explain the differences between Mendelian and complex forms of inheritance and why these differences complicate the ethical impact of genetic testing, (2) explain how publicly funded genome research through the Human Genome Project, the International HapMap Project and others have examined the ethical, legal and social implications of genome research, (3) list some of the ethical complexities of prenatal, newborn and predictive testing for various genetic disorders and (4) discuss the importance of evidence-based practice to the development of public policy for the introduction and clinical use of genetic tests.
    Journal of Communication Disorders 09/2008; 41(5):444-57. DOI:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2008.03.001 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The completion of the Human Genome Project has increased the pace of discovery of genetic markers for disease. Despite tremendous efforts in fundamental research, clinical applications still lag behind expectations, partly due to the lack of effective tools to systematically search for and summarize published data relative to the clinical assessment of new diagnostic molecular tests. Through a collaborative process using published tools and an expert panel, we developed a detailed checklist of the evidence that needs to be collected or produced to evaluate the potential usefulness of a new molecular diagnostic test. This tool is called GETT, for Genetic testing Evidence Tracking Tool. GETT allows 1) researchers to summarize the current evidence and to identify knowledge gaps for further research and; 2) stakeholders to collect data related to a given molecular test and improve their decision-making process. GETT comprises 72 clearly defined items/questions, grouped into 10 categories and 26 sub-themes, including an overview of disease epidemiology and genetics, the available diagnostic tools, and their analytical and clinical performances, availability of quality control programs, laboratory and clinical best practice guidelines, clinical utility, and impact on health care and psycho-social, ethical and legal implications. It also includes a summary of the evidence available and attempts to prioritise knowledge gaps related to the testing. We also compare GETT to other existing frameworks. This systematic evidence-based tracking tool, which is more detailed than existing frameworks and provides clear definition for each item, will help streamline collection of the available evidence to appraise the potential for clinical application of new molecular diagnostic tests and prioritize research to produce the evidence-base relative to the clinical implementation of molecular diagnostic tests.
    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 10/2010; 48(10):1397-407. DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2010.291 · 2.96 Impact Factor


Available from

Ronald L Zimmern