SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Miller D, Adam M, Aradhya S et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 2010: 86: 749764.
  • 2
    Mardis ER. Next-generation DNA sequencing methods. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2008: 9: 387402.
  • 3
    Ali-Khan S, Daar A, Shuman C, Ray P, Scherer S. Whole genome scanning: resolving clinical diagnosis and management amidst complex data. Pediatr Res 2009: 66: 357363.
  • 4
    Kaye J, Boddington P, de Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur J Hum Genet 2010: 18: 398403.
  • 5
    Kohane I, Masys D, Altman R. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006: 296: 212215.
  • 6
    Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research. Eur J Med Genet 2013: 56: 529540.
  • 7
    Bennette CS, Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM et al. Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value-development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT). Genet Med 2013: 15: 873881.
  • 8
    Driessnack M, Daack-Hirsch S, Downing N et al. The disclosure of incidental genomic findings: an “ethically important moment” in pediatric research and practice. J Community Genet 2013: 4: 435444.
  • 9
    Sapp JC, Dong D, Stark C et al. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet 2013: 85: 120126.
  • 10
    Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, Lohn Z, Rousseau F, Friedman JM. “I want to know what's in Pandora's box”: comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2012: 158A: 25192525.
  • 11
    Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. Secondary variants – in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. Eur J Hum Genet 2013: 21: 13311334.
  • 12
    Arksey H. Collecting data through joint interviews. Social Research Update 1996: Winter.
  • 13
    Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet 2013: 21: 248255.
  • 14
    Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011: 13: 499504.
  • 15
    Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005: 15: 12771288.
  • 16
    Riessman CK. Narrative analysis. In: Narrative, memory and everyday life. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield, 2005: 17.
  • 17
    Smith CP. Content analysis and narrative analysis. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, eds. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000: 313335.
  • 18
    Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman J, Dierickx K. The return of individual research findings in paediatric genetic research. J Med Ethics 2011: 37: 179183.
  • 19
    Wolf S, Lawrenz F, Nelson C et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008: 36: 219248.
  • 20
    Ropka ME, Wenzel J, Phillips EK, Siadaty M, Philbrick JT. Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006: 15: 840855.
  • 21
    Creighton S, Almqvist EW, MacGregor D et al. Predictive, pre-natal and diagnostic genetic testing for Huntington's disease: the experience in Canada from 1987 to 2000. Clin Genet 2003: 63: 462475.
  • 22
    Marteau TM, French DP, Griffin SJ et al. Effects of communicating DNA-based disease risk estimates on risk-reducing behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010: 10.
  • 23
    Peters SA, Laham SM, Pachter N, Winship IM. The future in clinical genetics: affective forecasting biases in patient and clinician decision making. Clin Genet 2013: Epub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1111/cge.12255.
  • 24
    Evans JP. Return of results to the families of children in genomic sequencing: tallying risks and benefits. Genet Med 2013: 15: 435436.
  • 25
    May T, Zusevics KL, Strong KA. On the ethics of clinical whole genome sequencing of children. Pediatrics 2013: 132: 207209.
  • 26
    Balfour-Lynn I, Madge S, Dinwiddie R. Testing carrier status in siblings of patients with cystic fibrosis. Arch Dis Child 1995: 72: 167168.
  • 27
    Wilfond BS, Carpenter KJ. Incidental findings in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 2008: 36: 332340.
  • 28
    Stankiewicz P, Beaudet AL. Use of array CGH in the evaluation of dysmorphology, malformations, developmental delay, and idiopathic mental retardation. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2007: 17: 182192.
  • 29
    Fernandez C. Public expectations for return of results – time to stop being paternalistic? Am J Bioeth 2008: 8: 4648.
  • 30
    Kaut KP. Counseling psychology in the era of genetic testing: considerations for practice, research, and training. Couns Psychol 2006: 34: 461488.