Genetic counseling (Geneva, Switzerland) · 2003
The Southwest of Scotland Structural Chromosomal Abnormalities Database: an assessment of its contribution to genetic counselling in affected families.
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.
Joss S K, Longman C A L, Kumar A J K, Younger R, Morrison R, Begum F, Colgan J, Tolmie J L
Аннотация
AIM: To assess the effect of establishing a genetic database on the provision of genetic counselling to individuals and families with structural chromosomal abnormalities.
METHOD: For the four year period 1997-2000, we compared all cytogenetics laboratory records with entries on the database to determine its completeness. We assessed the extent to which families had been followed up, compared these findings with a previous four year period (1977-1980) and sought to discover why some families were not followed up.
RESULTS: Of 215 probands identified during 1997-2000, 19 (9%) were not recorded on the register. Approximately one third of families were followed up completely, one third were partially followed up and one third had had no follow-up, for a variety of reasons. In this last group, there was evidence that some had received inadequate or incorrect genetic advice. There was no evidence that the database improved follow-up in families with structural chromosome abnormalities. Over 20 years, there has been a downward trend in the proportion of cases referred to the genetic clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: Our register can be used to monitor trends in clinical practice but has had no direct effect on the service provided to patients and their families.
METHOD: For the four year period 1997-2000, we compared all cytogenetics laboratory records with entries on the database to determine its completeness. We assessed the extent to which families had been followed up, compared these findings with a previous four year period (1977-1980) and sought to discover why some families were not followed up.
RESULTS: Of 215 probands identified during 1997-2000, 19 (9%) were not recorded on the register. Approximately one third of families were followed up completely, one third were partially followed up and one third had had no follow-up, for a variety of reasons. In this last group, there was evidence that some had received inadequate or incorrect genetic advice. There was no evidence that the database improved follow-up in families with structural chromosome abnormalities. Over 20 years, there has been a downward trend in the proportion of cases referred to the genetic clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: Our register can be used to monitor trends in clinical practice but has had no direct effect on the service provided to patients and their families.