Thalassaemia Carrier Detection during Antenatal Period: Single Centre Experience from Eastern India

Ghosh, Moupali; Basu, Keya; Karmakar, Subhrajyoti; Biswas, Avik; Sengupta, Moumita; Chatterjee, Uttara; Mukhopadhyay, Madhumita

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2019/42673.13374

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[53][54][55][56]80,89 Time points of measurement were also variable. A single time point was assessed by most studies (n = 41, 85%) and included audit data from databases between 1-30 years since screening (n = 34, 83%), 29,30,[32][33][34][35][36]38,40,42,[47][48][49]52,57,60,61,[63][64][65][67][68][69]73,74,78,81,[83][84][85][86][87][88]90,91,93 patient-reported outcomes at pre-test counselling after the decision to accept or decline was made (n = 3, 7%), 75,76,82 after maternal results but before partner results (n = 1, 2%), 39 and after results between 1-2 years since screening (n = 3, 7%). 46,51,…”

Section: Measurement Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of outcomes in studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening: Towards development of a core outcome set

Richardson

McEwen

Newton‐John

et al. 2022

Genetics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current practice recommendations support the widespread implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). These consensus-based recommendations highlight a research gap, with findings from current studies being insufficient to meet the standard required for more rigorous evidence-based recommendations. This systematic review assessed methodological aspects of studies on RGCS to inform the need for a core outcome set. Methods: We conducted a systematic search to identify peer-reviewed published studies offering population-based RGCS. Study designs, outcomes, and measurement methods were extracted. A narrative synthesis was conducting using an existing outcome taxonomy and criteria used in the evaluation of genetic screening programs as frameworks. Results: Sixty-five publications were included. We extracted 120 outcomes representing 24 outcome domains. Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement methods and time points of assessment was extensive. Quality appraisal raised concerns for bias. We found that reported outcomes had limited applicability to criteria used to evaluate genetic screening programs. Conclusion: Despite a large body of literature, diverse approaches to research have limited the conclusions that can be cumulatively drawn from this body of evidence. Consensus regarding meaningful outcomes for evaluation of RGCS would be a valuable first step in working towards evidence-based practice recommendations, supporting the development of a core outcome set.

show abstract