To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts.
paper
Cited
Public
Unavailable
- Authors
- Christenhusz, Gabrielle M; Devriendt, Koenraad; Dierickx, Kris
- Year
- 2013
- Journal
- European journal of human genetics : EJHG
- PMID
- 22739341
- DOI
- 10.1038/ejhg.2012.130
- PMCID
- PMC3573190
Any test that produces visual images or digital or genetic sequences will tend to produce incidental findings because more will be visible than what was originally sought. We conducted a systematic review of the ethical reasons presented in the literature for and against the disclosure of incidental findings arising in clinical and research genetics contexts. A search of electronic databases resulted in 13 articles included for systematic review. Articles presented reasons for and against disclosure, and reasons for proceeding with caution when making decisions about disclosure. One major recommendation of the reviewed articles is in favor of qualified disclosure: incidental findings with confirmed clinical utility where there is the possibility of treatment or prevention should be disclosed, with exceptions. A second type of recommendation is that disclosure should proceed with caution, especially in the context of new genetic technologies and genetic testing involving minors. It is also recommended that the number of possible incidental findings be limited even before genetic testing is carried out. Such a policy, which we advocate, would show preference for non-disclosure.
No figures extracted from this document.
No chunks — full text not yet ingested.
No entities extracted from this document yet.
No uploaded files.
Not in any collection.
No citations found.
In this knowledge base
External
| Title | Authors | Journal | Year | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emerging and evolving values in the changing landscape of genomics. | Siermann M et al. | — | 2025 | → |
| Ethical considerations for hematologic precursor conditions. | Blackstone EC et al. | — | 2025 | → |
| Genetic testing for Parkinson's disease in an underrepresented population: Knowledge, attitudes, and ethical considerations from a Malaysian perspective. | Gerard JP et al. | — | 2025 | → |
| Impact of abnormal ambulatory ECG findings when screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care: a qualitative study among participants of the PATCH-AF trial. | Brik T et al. | — | 2025 | → |
| Targeted genetic screening for identifying carrier status and early-onset disease risks in Chinese newborns. | Hao C et al. | — | 2025 | → |
| Exploring uncertainties regarding unsolicited findings in genetic testing. | van der Schoot V et al. | — | 2024 | → |
| Gene Therapy for Achromatopsia. | Baxter MF et al. | — | 2024 | → |
| Refining ischemic stroke risk using combined polygenic scores. Are we ready for the clinical use? | Ramoni D et al. | — | 2024 | → |
| Research participant perceptions of personal utility in disclosure of individual research results from genomic analysis. | Bogaert B et al. | — | 2024 | → |
| Challenges and Pragmatic Solutions in Pre-Test and Post-Test Genetic Counseling for Prenatal Exome Sequencing. | Diderich KEM et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| Challenges Related to the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing for the Optimization of Drug Therapy. | Zhou Y et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| Clinical geneticists' views on and experiences with unsolicited findings in next-generation sequencing: "A great technology creating new dilemmas". | van der Schoot V et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| "How about me giving blood for the COVID vaccine and not being able to get vaccinated?" A cognitive interview study on understanding of and agreement with broad consent for future use of data and samples in Colombia and Nicaragua. | Maxwell L et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| Patients' right to know: A scoping review. | Inkeroinen S et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| Personal Genomes in Practice: Exploring Citizen and Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Personalized Genomic Medicine and Personal Health Data Spaces Using a Mixed-Methods Design. | Tommel J et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| The Singapore National Precision Medicine Strategy. | Wong E et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| What can the citations of systematic reviews of ethical literature tell us about their use?-an explorative empirical analysis of 31 reviews. | Nobile H et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review. | White S et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| Guideline for feedback of individual genetic research findings for genomics research in Africa. | Matimba A et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Impact of incidental findings on young adult participants in brain imaging research: an interview study. | Oerlemans AJM et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Perspectives and experiences of researchers regarding feedback of incidental genomic research findings: A qualitative study. | Ochieng J et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| The long-term impact of receiving incidental findings on parents undergoing genome-wide sequencing. | Cheung F et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings. | Van Der Merwe N et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research. | Graham M et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings. | Sapp JC et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings. | Spies G et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Attitudes of French populations towards the disclosure of unsolicited findings in medical genetics. | Rosier M et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Ethical Principles, Constraints and Opportunities in Clinical Proteomics. | Mann SP et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Incidental findings in forensics: are we sure that it is a question easy to deal with? | Caenazzo L et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Preferences of Italian patients for return of secondary findings from clinical genome/exome sequencing. | Godino L et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants. | Staunton C et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| The impact of unsolicited findings in clinical exome sequencing, a qualitative interview study. | Schoot VV et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| The point-of-care use of a facial phenotyping tool in the genetics clinic: An ethics tête-a-tête. | McCradden MD et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| To disclose, or not to disclose? Perspectives of clinical genomics professionals toward returning incidental findings from genomic research. | AlFayyad I et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Ethical Challenges and Opportunities Associated With the Ability to Perform Medical Screening From Interactions With Search Engines: Viewpoint. | Yom-Tov E et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Ethics and Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials. | Morain SR et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons. | Rach C et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| New Frontiers and Old Challenges: How to Manage Incidental Findings When Forensic Diagnosis Goes Beyond. | Caenazzo L et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Pioneering Informed Consent for Return of Research Results to Breast Cancer Patients Facing Barriers to Implementation of Genomic Medicine: The Kenyan BRCA1/2 Testing Experience Using Whole Exome Sequencing. | Torrorey-Sawe R et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Returning incidental findings in African genomics research. | Wonkam A et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| The right not to know and the obligation to know. | Davies B | — | 2020 | → |
| Creation of Data Repositories to Advance Nursing Science. | Perazzo J et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Ethical issues in susceptibility genetic testing for late-onset neurodegenerative diseases. | Manrique de Lara A et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper). | Mertz M | — | 2019 | → |
| Preferences for Return of Genetic Results Among Participants in the Jackson Heart Study and Framingham Heart Study. | Joffe S et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| The psychosocial and service delivery impact of genomic testing for inherited retinal dystrophies. | McVeigh E et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Attitudes of stakeholders in psychiatry towards the inclusion of children in genomic research. | Sundby A et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers. | Warner TD et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Commentary for Special Issue of Prevention Science "Using Genetics in Prevention: Science Fiction or Science Fact?" | Dick DM | — | 2018 | → |
| Ethical considerations for modern molecular pathology. | Vos S et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Ethical Issues in Contemporary Clinical Genetics. | Braverman G et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample. | Flatau L et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate. | Saelaert M et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| "I would like to discuss it further with an expert": a focus group study of Finnish adults' perspectives on genetic secondary findings. | Vornanen M et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Legal & ethical compliance when sharing biospecimen. | Klingstrom T et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Managing unsolicited findings in genomics: A qualitative interview study with cancer patients. | Bijlsma RM et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| "Not pathogenic until proven otherwise": perspectives of UK clinical genomics professionals toward secondary findings in context of a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team and the 100,000 Genomes Project. | Ormondroyd E et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| A RaDiCAL gene hunt. | Pupavac M et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about 'incidental' findings-From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs). | Ploug T et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Ethical considerations in the implementation of nutrigenetics/nutrigenomics. | Hurlimann T et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Expect the unexpected: screening for secondary findings in clinical genomics research. | Mackley MP et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| [Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature. A problem analysis]. | Mertz M | — | 2017 | → |
| Returning genome sequences to research participants: Policy and practice | Wright CF et al. | — | 2017 | — |
| Returning genome sequences to research participants: Policy and practice. | Wright CF et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Return of Research Results in the Saudi Biobank: An Exploratory Survey. | Alahmad G et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Stakeholders in psychiatry and their attitudes toward receiving pertinent and incident findings in genomic research. | Sundby A et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| An old problem in a new age: Revisiting the clinical dilemma of misattributed paternity. | Hercher L et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. | Middleton A et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Broad Consent for Genomic Research and Biobanking: Perspectives from Low- and Middle-Income Countries. | Tindana P et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Case Report: Direct Access Genetic Testing and A False-Positive Result For Long QT Syndrome. | Predham S et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Clinically Significant Germline Mutations in Cancer-Causing Genes Identified Through Research Studies Should Be Offered to Research Participants by Genetic Counselors. | Forrest LE et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. | Gourna EG et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews. | Mertz M et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Disclosure of research results: a randomized study on GENEPSO-PS cohort participants. | Mancini J et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research. | Souzeau E et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Ethics Oversight Mechanisms for Surgical Innovation: A Systematic and Comparative Review of Arguments. | Karpowicz L et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Findings made in gene panel to whole genome sequencing: data, knowledge, ethics - and consequences? | Winkler EC et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| Obtaining informed consent for genomics research in Africa: analysis of H3Africa consent documents. | Munung NS et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| The Genetic Counselor's Role in Managing Ethical Dilemmas Arising in the Laboratory Setting. | Balcom JR et al. | — | 2016 | → |
| A protocol for the identification and validation of novel genetic causes of kidney disease. | Mallett A et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Comprehensive gene panels provide advantages over clinical exome sequencing for Mendelian diseases. | Saudi Mendeliome Group | — | 2015 | → |
| Connecting the CNTNAP2 Networks with Neurodevelopmental Disorders. | Poot M | — | 2015 | → |
| Disclosure of incidental findings in cancer genomic research: investigators' perceptions on obligations and barriers. | Kleiderman E et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions. | Christenhusz GM et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Focus group discussions on secondary variants and next-generation sequencing technologies. | Christenhusz GM et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice. | Roche MI et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Legal and clinical issues in genetics and genomics. | Lough ME et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Research participants in NGS studies want to know about incidental findings. | Jelsig AM et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| So rare we need to hunt for them: reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings. | Schuol S et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Tumor profiling and the incidentalome: patient decisions and risks. | Hofstatter E et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Whole-genome array as a first-line cytogenetic test in prenatal diagnosis. | Srebniak MI et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| A qualitative study of healthcare providers' perspectives on the implications of genome-wide testing in pediatric clinical practice. | Reiff M et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. | Yu JH et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing. | Yu JH et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Autonomy, the Right Not to Know, and the Right to Know Personal Research Results: What Rights Are There, and Who Should Decide about Exceptions? | Helgesson G | — | 2014 | → |
| Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice. | Shkedi-Rafid S et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Did we describe what you meant? Findings and methodological discussion of an empirical validation study for a systematic review of reasons. | Mertz M et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Do participants in genome sequencing studies of psychiatric disorders wish to be informed of their results? A survey study. | Bui ET et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review. | Lohn Z et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Incidental findings: the time is not yet ripe for a policy for biobanks. | Viberg J et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. | Appelbaum PS et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Next-generation sequencing for research and diagnostics in kidney disease. | Renkema KY et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Recognizing the Right Not to Know: Conceptual, Professional, and Legal Implications. | Laurie G | — | 2014 | → |
| Returning pleiotropic results from genetic testing to patients and research participants. | Kocarnik JM et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach. | Mertz M et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| The communication of secondary variants: interviews with parents whose children have undergone array-CGH testing. | Christenhusz GM et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| The implications of familial incidental findings from exome sequencing: the NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program experience. | Lawrence L et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification. | Srebniak MI et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| Utility of next generation sequencing in clinical primary immunodeficiencies. | Raje N et al. | — | 2014 | → |
| A closer look at the recommended criteria for disclosing genetic results: perspectives of medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and institutional review board chairs. | Brandt DS et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing. | Yu JH et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Best practice guidelines for the use of next-generation sequencing applications in genome diagnostics: a national collaborative study of Dutch genome diagnostic laboratories. | Weiss MM et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem? | Steinsbekk KS et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Communication of results and disclosure of incidental findings in longitudinal paediatric research. | Anastasova V et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research. | Christenhusz GM et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Genetic medicine and incidental findings: it is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. | Crawford G et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Incidental findings in the era of whole genome sequencing? | Parens E et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Incidental variants are critical for genomics. | Biesecker LG | — | 2013 | → |
| Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. | Ayuso C et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Molecular genetic testing and the future of clinical genomics. | Katsanis SH et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Physicians' perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families. | Reiff M et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Secondary variants--in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. | Christenhusz GM et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model. | Yu JH et al. | — | 2013 | → |
| Incidental finding of alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase deficiency in a patient with oculocutaneous albinism type 4. | Verhagen JM et al. | — | 2012 | → |
| Molecular genetics research in ADHD: ethical considerations concerning patients' benefit and resource allocation. | Rothenberger LG | — | 2012 | → |