Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing.

[1]  Christine Weiner,et al.  Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues). , 2014, American journal of epidemiology.

[2]  S. Metcalfe,et al.  Availability of treatment drives decisions of genetic health professionals about disclosure of incidental findings , 2014, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[3]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children’s Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board , 2014, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  Victoria A. Miller,et al.  Stakeholders’ Opinions on the Implementation of Pediatric Whole Exome Sequencing: Implications for Informed Consent , 2014, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[5]  Megan E. Grove,et al.  Views of Genetics Health Professionals on the Return of Genomic Results , 2014, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[6]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[7]  J. Friedman,et al.  Paternalism and the ACMG recommendations on genomic incidental findings: patients seen but not heard , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  Susan M Wolf,et al.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science. , 2013, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[9]  N. Holtzman.  ACMG recommendations on incidental findings are flawed scientifically and ethically , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  A. Lemke,et al.  Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study , 2013, Clinical genetics.

[11]  E. Clayton,et al.  Premature guidance about whole-genome sequencing. , 2013, Personalized medicine.

[12]  Ellen Wright Clayton,et al.  Seeking Genomic Knowledge: The Case for Clinical Restraint. , 2013, The Hastings law journal.

[13]  Megan Allyse,et al.  Not-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. , 2013, Trends in biotechnology.

[14]  M. Driessnack,et al.  ‘Information is information’: a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome‐based testing , 2013, Clinical genetics.

[15]  B. Knoppers,et al.  Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[17]  Susan M Wolf,et al.  Patient Autonomy and Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics , 2013, Science.

[18]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Ethics and Genomic Incidental Findings , 2013, Science.

[19]  L. Biesecker.  Incidental variants are critical for genomics. , 2013, American journal of human genetics.

[20]  M. Bamshad,et al.  Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[21]  J. Friedman,et al.  Genetics professionals' perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome‐wide sequencing , 2013, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[22]  Kris Dierickx,et al.  To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts , 2012, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[23]  A. Bassett,et al.  Incomplete Knowledge of the Clinical Context as a Barrier to Interpreting Incidental Genetic Research Findings , 2013, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[24]  H. Kearney,et al.  American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics: standards and guidelines for documenting suspected consanguinity as an incidental finding of genomic testing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[25]  T. Harris.  Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts , 2013 .

[26]  Nancy R. Downing,et al.  Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. , 2013, Patient education and counseling.

[27]  G. Ginsburg,et al.  Genetic testing: clinical and personal utility. , 2012, The virtual mentor : VM.

[28]  Larry N. Singh,et al.  Secondary variants in individuals undergoing exome sequencing: screening of 572 individuals identifies high-penetrance mutations in cancer-susceptibility genes. , 2012, American journal of human genetics.

[29]  James P Evans,et al.  Return of results: not that complicated? , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[30]  L. Parker.  Returning Individual Research Results: What Role Should People’s Preferences Play? , 2012 .

[31]  M. Bamshad,et al.  Genomics really gets personal: How exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research , 2011, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[32]  M. Littleton-Kearney,et al.  Interventions to improve patient education regarding multifactorial genetic conditions: A systematic review , 2009, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[33]  J. Benkendorf,et al.  The state of the medical geneticist workforce: Findings of the 2003 survey of American Board of Medical Genetics certified geneticists , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[34]  K. Garver,et al.  American Society of Human Genetics membership survey results, 1989. , 1990, American journal of human genetics.