The Medical journal of Australia · 2005
Genetic risk estimation by healthcare professionals.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bonke Benno, Tibben Aad, Lindhout Dick, Clarke Angus J, Stijnen Theo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether healthcare professionals correctly incorporate the relevance of a favourable test outcome in a close relative when determining the level of risk for individuals at risk for Huntington's disease.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Survey of clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors from 12 centres of clinical genetics (United Kingdom, 6; The Netherlands, 4; Italy, 1; Australia, 1) in May-June 2002. Participants were asked to assess risk of specific individuals in 10 pedigrees, three of which required use of Bayes' theorem.
PARTICIPANTS: 71 clinical geneticists and 41 other healthcare professionals involved in genetic counselling.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of respondents correctly assessing risk in the three target pedigrees; proportion of respondents who were confident of their estimate.
RESULTS: 50%-64% of respondents (for the three targets separately) did not include the favourable test information and incorrectly estimated the risks as being about equal to the prior risks; 77%-91% of these respondents were "sure" or "completely sure" that their estimations were correct. Twenty of the 112 respondents correctly estimated the risks for all three target pedigrees.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors frequently use prior risks in situations where Bayes' theorem should be applied, leading to overestimations of the risk for an individual.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Survey of clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors from 12 centres of clinical genetics (United Kingdom, 6; The Netherlands, 4; Italy, 1; Australia, 1) in May-June 2002. Participants were asked to assess risk of specific individuals in 10 pedigrees, three of which required use of Bayes' theorem.
PARTICIPANTS: 71 clinical geneticists and 41 other healthcare professionals involved in genetic counselling.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of respondents correctly assessing risk in the three target pedigrees; proportion of respondents who were confident of their estimate.
RESULTS: 50%-64% of respondents (for the three targets separately) did not include the favourable test information and incorrectly estimated the risks as being about equal to the prior risks; 77%-91% of these respondents were "sure" or "completely sure" that their estimations were correct. Twenty of the 112 respondents correctly estimated the risks for all three target pedigrees.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors frequently use prior risks in situations where Bayes' theorem should be applied, leading to overestimations of the risk for an individual.