BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Cited by in F6Publishing
For: Lemke AA, Bick D, Dimmock D, Simpson P, Veith R. Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study. Clin Genet 2013;84:230-6. [PMID: 23163796 DOI: 10.1111/cge.12060] [Cited by in Crossref: 60] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 57] [Article Influence: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
Number Citing Articles
1 Hitch K, Joseph G, Guiltinan J, Kianmahd J, Youngblom J, Blanco A. Lynch syndrome patients' views of and preferences for return of results following whole exome sequencing. J Genet Couns 2014;23:539-51. [PMID: 24449059 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9687-6] [Cited by in Crossref: 50] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43] [Article Influence: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
2 Harper JC, Geraedts J, Borry P, Cornel MC, Dondorp W, Gianaroli L, Harton G, Milachich T, Kääriäinen H, Liebaers I, Morris M, Sequeiros J, Sermon K, Shenfield F, Skirton H, Soini S, Spits C, Veiga A, Vermeesch JR, Viville S, de Wert G, Macek M Jr; ESHG., ESHRE., EuroGentest2. Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21 Suppl 2:S1-21. [PMID: 24225486 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.219] [Cited by in Crossref: 32] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
3 Strong KA, May T, Mccauley M, Pean Kirschner AL, Jeruzal J, Wilson SL, Zusevics KL, Knight C. Adult adoptees’ attitudes regarding the potential use of genetic information to fill the gap in their family health history. Adoption & Fostering 2017;41:159-69. [DOI: 10.1177/0308575917704553] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
4 Rahimzadeh V, Avard D, Sénécal K, Knoppers BM, Sinnett D. To disclose, or not to disclose? Context matters. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;23:279-84. [PMID: 24916647 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.108] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
5 Darnell AJ, Austin H, Bluemke DA, Cannon RO 3rd, Fischbeck K, Gahl W, Goldman D, Grady C, Greene MH, Holland SM, Hull SC, Porter FD, Resnik D, Rubinstein WS, Biesecker LG. A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research. Am J Hum Genet 2016;98:435-41. [PMID: 26942283 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.01.010] [Cited by in Crossref: 18] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
6 Hofmann B. Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know--that is not the question. BMC Med Ethics 2016;17:13. [PMID: 26873084 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0096-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 19] [Article Influence: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
7 Anderson JA, Meyn MS, Shuman C, Zlotnik Shaul R, Mantella LE, Szego MJ, Bowdin S, Monfared N, Hayeems RZ. Parents perspectives on whole genome sequencing for their children: qualified enthusiasm? J Med Ethics 2017;43:535-9. [PMID: 27888232 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103564] [Cited by in Crossref: 35] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
8 Sanderson SC, Hill M, Patch C, Searle B, Lewis C, Chitty LS. Delivering genome sequencing in clinical practice: an interview study with healthcare professionals involved in the 100 000 Genomes Project. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029699. [PMID: 31685495 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029699] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
9 van der Werf IM, Kooy RF, Vandeweyer G. A robust protocol to increase NimbleGen SeqCap EZ multiplexing capacity to 96 samples. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123872. [PMID: 25875648 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123872] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
10 Ibuki T, Yamamoto K, Matsui K. Differences in Conceptual Understanding of the "Actionability" of Incidental Findings and the Resultant Difference in Ethical Responsibility: An Empirical Study in Japan. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2020;11:187-94. [PMID: 32615058 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1784308] [Reference Citation Analysis]
11 Duong B, Savarirayan R, Winship I. Incidental diagnosis of HLRCC following investigation for Asperger Syndrome: actionable and actioned. Familial Cancer 2016;15:25-9. [DOI: 10.1007/s10689-015-9829-5] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
12 Byrjalsen A, Stoltze UK, Castor A, Wahlberg A. Germline whole genome sequencing in pediatric oncology in Denmark-Practitioner perspectives. Mol Genet Genomic Med 2020;8:e1276. [PMID: 32500610 DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.1276] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
13 Lohn Z, Adam S, Birch PH, Friedman JM. Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review. J Genet Couns 2014;23:463-73. [PMID: 23709124 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9604-4] [Cited by in Crossref: 29] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
14 Seiffert DJ, McCarthy Veach P, LeRoy B, Guan W, Zierhut H. Beyond medical actionability: Public perceptions of important actions in response to hypothetical genetic testing results. J Genet Couns 2019;28:355-66. [PMID: 30710467 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1048] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
15 Ploug T, Holm S. Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about 'incidental' findings-From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs). PLoS One 2017;12:e0179935. [PMID: 28671958 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179935] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
16 Zawati MH, Parry D, Knoppers BM. The best interests of the child and the return of results in genetic research: international comparative perspectives. BMC Med Ethics 2014;15:72. [PMID: 25280986 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-72] [Cited by in Crossref: 17] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
17 Schiffman JD, Geller JI, Mundt E, Means A, Means L, Means V. Update on pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;60:1247-52. [PMID: 23625733 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.24555] [Cited by in Crossref: 35] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28] [Article Influence: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
18 Blackburn HL, Schroeder B, Turner C, Shriver CD, Ellsworth DL, Ellsworth RE. Management of Incidental Findings in the Era of Next-generation Sequencing. Curr Genomics 2015;16:159-74. [PMID: 26069456 DOI: 10.2174/1389202916666150317232930] [Cited by in Crossref: 33] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25] [Article Influence: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
19 Roche MI, Berg JS. Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice. Curr Genet Med Rep 2015;3:166-76. [PMID: 26566463 DOI: 10.1007/s40142-015-0075-9] [Cited by in Crossref: 57] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 48] [Article Influence: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
20 Burke W, Evans BJ, Jarvik GP. Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2014;166C:105-11. [PMID: 24616381 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31393] [Cited by in Crossref: 70] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 67] [Article Influence: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
21 Vears DF, Sénécal K, Borry P. Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next-generation sequencing technologies: Perspectives of laboratory personnel. Hum Mutat 2017;38:905-11. [PMID: 28512758 DOI: 10.1002/humu.23259] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
22 Biesecker LG. Incidental variants are critical for genomics. Am J Hum Genet 2013;92:648-51. [PMID: 23643378 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.04.001] [Cited by in Crossref: 32] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27] [Article Influence: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
23 Rigter T, van Aart CJ, Elting MW, Waisfisz Q, Cornel MC, Henneman L. Informed consent for exome sequencing in diagnostics: exploring first experiences and views of professionals and patients. Clin Genet 2014;85:417-22. [PMID: 24117109 DOI: 10.1111/cge.12299] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
24 Haga SB, Zhao JQ. Stakeholder views on returning research results. Adv Genet 2013;84:41-81. [PMID: 24262096 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407703-4.00002-5] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
25 Smith EE, du Souich C, Dragojlovic N, Elliott AM; CAUSES Study, RAPIDOMICS Study. Genetic counseling considerations with rapid genome-wide sequencing in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Genet Couns 2019;28:263-72. [DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1074] [Cited by in Crossref: 15] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
26 Shahmirzadi L, Chao EC, Palmaer E, Parra MC, Tang S, Gonzalez KD. Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing. Genet Med 2014;16:395-9. [PMID: 24113345 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.153] [Cited by in Crossref: 75] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 71] [Article Influence: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
27 Scheuner MT, Peredo J, Benkendorf J, Bowdish B, Feldman G, Fleisher L, Mulvihill JJ, Watson M, Herman GE, Evans J. Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in. Genet Med 2015;17:27-35. [PMID: 25394173 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2014.165] [Cited by in Crossref: 41] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 34] [Article Influence: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
28 Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Van Esch H, Dierickx K. Focus group discussions on secondary variants and next-generation sequencing technologies. European Journal of Medical Genetics 2015;58:249-57. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2015.01.007] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
29 Gourna EG, Armstrong N, Wallace SE. Incidental findings from clinical sequencing in Greece: reporting experts' attitudes. J Community Genet 2014;5:383-93. [PMID: 25048384 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-014-0194-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
30 Bowdin S, Ray PN, Cohn RD, Meyn MS. The Genome Clinic: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assessing the Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Genomic Analysis into Clinical Care. Human Mutation 2014;35:513-9. [DOI: 10.1002/humu.22536] [Cited by in Crossref: 25] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
31 Gourna EG, Armstrong N, Wallace SE. Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet 2016;24:344-9. [PMID: 26059844 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.132] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis]
32 Umbach N, Beißbarth T, Bleckmann A, Duttge G, Flatau L, König A, Kuhn J, Perera-bel J, Roschauer J, Schulze T, Schweda M, Urban A, Zimmermann A, Sax U. Clinical application of genomic high-throughput data: Infrastructural, ethical, legal and psychosocial aspects. European Neuropsychopharmacology 2020;31:1-15. [DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2019.09.008] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
33 Levenseller BL, Soucier DJ, Miller VA, Harris D, Conway L, Bernhardt BA. Stakeholders' opinions on the implementation of pediatric whole exome sequencing: implications for informed consent. J Genet Couns 2014;23:552-65. [PMID: 23846343 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9626-y] [Cited by in Crossref: 53] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 53] [Article Influence: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
34 Fiala C, Taher J, Diamandis EP. Benefits and harms of wellness initiatives. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) 2019;57:1494-500. [DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2019-0122] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
35 Ormondroyd E, Mackley MP, Blair E, Craft J, Knight JC, Taylor JC, Taylor J, Watkins H. "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. Genet Med 2018;20:320-8. [PMID: 29261176 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.157] [Cited by in Crossref: 33] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
36 Klitzman R, Buquez B, Appelbaum PS, Fyer A, Chung WK. Processes and factors involved in decisions regarding return of incidental genomic findings in research. Genet Med 2014;16:311-7. [PMID: 24071801 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.140] [Cited by in Crossref: 26] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis]
37 Barajas M, Ross LF. Pediatric Professionals' Attitudes about Secondary Findings in Genomic Sequencing of Children. The Journal of Pediatrics 2015;166:1276-1282.e7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.01.032] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
38 Joshi E, Mighton C, Clausen M, Casalino S, Kim THM, Kowal C, Birken C, Maguire JL, Bombard Y. Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children. Eur J Hum Genet 2020;28:551-7. [PMID: 31804631 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0547-6] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
39 Bishop C, Strong K, Dimmock D. Choices of incidental findings of individuals undergoing genome wide sequencing, a single center's experience: Choices of incidental findings of individuals undergoing genome wide sequencing. Clin Genet 2017;91:137-40. [DOI: 10.1111/cge.12829] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis]
40 Wynn J, Martinez J, Duong J, Chiuzan C, Phelan JC, Fyer A, Klitzman RL, Appelbaum PS, Chung WK. Research Participants’ Preferences for Hypothetical Secondary Results from Genomic Research. J Genet Counsel 2017;26:841-51. [DOI: 10.1007/s10897-016-0059-2] [Cited by in Crossref: 24] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
41 Yu JH, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ. Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014;95:77-84. [PMID: 24975944 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.06.004] [Cited by in Crossref: 89] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81] [Article Influence: 11.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
42 Delanne J, Nambot S, Chassagne A, Putois O, Pelissier A, Peyron C, Gautier E, Thevenon J, Cretin E, Bruel AL, Goussot V, Ghiringhelli F, Boidot R, Tran Mau-Them F, Philippe C, Vitobello A, Demougeot L, Vernin C, Lapointe AS, Bardou M, Luu M, Binquet C, Lejeune C, Joly L, Juif C, Baurand A, Sawka C, Bertolone G, Duffourd Y, Sanlaville D, Pujol P, Geneviève D, Houdayer F, Thauvin-Robinet C, Faivre L. Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. A review of the literature. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:103529. [PMID: 30165243 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.08.010] [Cited by in Crossref: 18] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 18] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
43 Ryan KA, De Vries RG, Uhlmann WR, Roberts JS, Gornick MC. Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice. J Genet Couns 2017;26:1197-212. [PMID: 28357777 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0095-6] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
44 Flatau L, Reitt M, Duttge G, Lenk C, Zoll B, Poser W, Weber A, Heilbronner U, Rietschel M, Strohmaier J, Kesberg R, Nagel J, Schulze TG. Genomic information and a person's right not to know: A closer look at variations in hypothetical informational preferences in a German sample. PLoS One 2018;13:e0198249. [PMID: 29924808 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198249] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
45 Strong KA, Zusevics KL, Bick D, Veith R. Views of primary care providers regarding the return of genome sequencing incidental findings. Clin Genet 2014;86:461-8. [PMID: 24673592 DOI: 10.1111/cge.12390] [Cited by in Crossref: 24] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
46 Saelaert M, Mertes H, De Baere E, Devisch I. Incidental or secondary findings: an integrative and patient-inclusive approach to the current debate. Eur J Hum Genet 2018;26:1424-31. [PMID: 29970927 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0200-9] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
47 Jacob HJ, Abrams K, Bick DP, Brodie K, Dimmock DP, Farrell M, Geurts J, Harris J, Helbling D, Joers BJ, Kliegman R, Kowalski G, Lazar J, Margolis DA, North P, Northup J, Roquemore-Goins A, Scharer G, Shimoyama M, Strong K, Taylor B, Tsaih SW, Tschannen MR, Veith RL, Wendt-Andrae J, Wilk B, Worthey EA. Genomics in clinical practice: lessons from the front lines. Sci Transl Med 2013;5:194cm5. [PMID: 23863829 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006468] [Cited by in Crossref: 65] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 57] [Article Influence: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
48 Yamamoto K, Hachiya T, Fukushima A, Nakaya N, Okayama A, Tanno K, Aizawa F, Tokutomi T, Hozawa A, Shimizu A. Population-based biobank participants' preferences for receiving genetic test results. J Hum Genet 2017;62:1037-48. [PMID: 28794501 DOI: 10.1038/jhg.2017.81] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
49 Lynch J, Hines J, Theodore S, Mitchell M. Lay Attitudes Toward Trust, Uncertainty, and the Return of Pediatric Research Results in Biobanking. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2016;7:160-6. [PMID: 28050575 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2015.1053008] [Cited by in Crossref: 4] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
50 Wynn J, Martinez J, Duong J, Zhang Y, Phelan J, Fyer A, Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS, Chung WK. Association of Researcher Characteristics with Views on Return of Incidental Findings from Genomic Research. J Genet Couns 2015;24:833-41. [PMID: 25592144 DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9817-1] [Cited by in Crossref: 15] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis]
51 Spies G, Mokaya J, Steadman J, Schuitmaker N, Kidd M, Hemmings SMJ, Carr JA, Kuivaniemi H, Seedat S; SHARED ROOTS Group. Attitudes among South African university staff and students towards disclosing secondary genetic findings. J Community Genet 2021;12:171-84. [PMID: 33219499 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-020-00494-0] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]
52 Sanderson SC, Lewis C, Patch C, Hill M, Bitner-Glindzicz M, Chitty LS. Opening the "black box" of informed consent appointments for genome sequencing: a multisite observational study. Genet Med 2019;21:1083-91. [PMID: 30270361 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0310-3] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis]
53 Heaton TJ, Chico V. Attitudes towards the sharing of genetic information with at-risk relatives: results of a quantitative survey. Hum Genet 2016;135:109-20. [PMID: 26612611 DOI: 10.1007/s00439-015-1612-z] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis]
54 Mackley MP, Fletcher B, Parker M, Watkins H, Ormondroyd E. Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genet Med 2017;19:283-93. [PMID: 27584911 DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.109] [Cited by in Crossref: 74] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 70] [Article Influence: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis]
55 Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Wright CF, Parker M; DDD study. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet 2016;24:21-9. [PMID: 25920556 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.58] [Cited by in Crossref: 116] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 107] [Article Influence: 16.6] [Reference Citation Analysis]
56 Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Hanish A, Johnson VA, Shah LL, Simon CM, Williams JK. 'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clin Genet 2013;84:11-8. [PMID: 23590238 DOI: 10.1111/cge.12167] [Cited by in Crossref: 52] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 52] [Article Influence: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis]
57 Urban A, Schweda M. Clinical and personal utility of genomic high-throughput technologies: perspectives of medical professionals and affected persons. New Genetics and Society 2018;37:153-73. [DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2018.1469976] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis]