Skip to main content

Table 1 Neurologists’ perceptions on returning WGS results

From: Exploring neurologists’ perspectives on the return of next generation sequencing results to their patients: a needed step in the development of guidelines

Questions and number of respondents Percentage
Gender (n = 155)
 Female 51.6
 Male 48.4
 No answer 24.0
Characteristics of patients (n = 204)
 Mainly Adults (n = 98) 48.0
 Mainly Children (n = 76) 37.3
 Both (n = 30) 14.7
Which of the following statements most closely describes your opinion about the return of WGS results to the patient, including incidental findings?
 a. To be returned to a patient, WGS results should always have a demonstrated clinical utility for diagnosis, prognosis or treatment (n = 94/159) 59.1
 b. In some circumstances it may be appropriate to return WGS results that do not have a demonstrated clinical utility for diagnosis, prognosis or treatment (n = 65/159) 40.9
  i. reproductive decisions (n = 50/63) 79.4
  ii. parents’/proxies’ requests (n = 49/63) 77.8
To be returned to a patient, an incidental finding should always…(statements were not mutually exclusive)
 a. Be related to a disease for which effective preventive interventions or treatments were available (n = 111/158) 70.3
 b. Indicate a high risk of developing a specific disease (n = 104/158) 76.8
 c. Be about a disease whose onset may be expected in a near future (as opposed, for instance, to a result indicating a risk for a child of developing a disease late in adult life only) (n = 77/158) 50.0
You agree that in WGS, analysis of the genomics should be limited to the genes likely to be relevant for a patient’s specific medical condition, so as to limit IFs (n = 108/157) 68.8