Use of Personalized Medicine in the Selection of Patients for Renal Transplantation: Views of Quebec Transplant Physicians and Referring Nephrologists
Abstract
AIM: To explore the views of physicians on the use of personalized medicine tools to develop a new method for selecting potential recipients of a renal allograft. METHODS: A total of 22 semidirected interviews, using clinical case studies. RESULTS: According to the participants, this method has several possible applications within renal transplantation (individualizing immunosuppressive therapy, help with decision making, and possibly with the selection of patients). It could be more effective than the method presently used. The method must be validated scientifically, and must also involve clinical judgment. CONCLUSION: The use of personalized medicine within transplantation must be in the best interests of the patient. An ethical reflection is necessary in order to focus on the possibility of patients being excluded, as well as on the resolution of the equity/efficacy dilemma. Empirical research has shown itself to be essential for ascertaining the views of the clinicians who will be working with the tools provided by personalized medicine.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
From the perspective of professionals, an additional unacceptable use of data would be to refuse someone an organ transplantation because of their genetic predisposition to organ rejection.
“From the perspective of professionals an additional unacceptable use of data would be to refuse someone an organ transplantation because of their genetic predisposition to organ rejection [33, 34].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Some of the physicians interviewed expressed concern that behind the objective data, the human aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the view on the whole person could be lost.
“In the studies by Dion-Labrie et al., some of the physicians interviewed expressed concern that behind the objective data, the human aspects of the doctor-patient relationship and the view on the whole person could be lost.”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Some publications indicate that professionals expect a change in the doctor-patient relationship through PM.
“Some publications indicate that professionals expect a change in the doctor-patient relationship through PM.”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The gain in objectivity carries the risk that less room is given to feelings in communication with the patient.
“The gain in objectivity carries the risk that less room is given to feelings in communication with the patient. [33, 34].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Cites
Barter, C., & Renold, E. (2000) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645570050178594 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 51
- 10.2174/138945006779025428 · DOI
- 10.2217/17410541.6.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201557 · DOI
- Jain KK : Personalized medicine.Curr. Opin. Mol. Ther.4(6) , 548–558 (2002).
- 10.1517/phgs.5.3.331.29830 · DOI
- 10.2217/17410541.3.3.223 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.molmed.2007.03.003 · DOI
- 10.2217/14622416.7.7.1087 · DOI
- Kampa IS : Nanotechnology-based personalized medicine.J. Clin. Ligand Assay29(3) , 130–132 (2006).
- 10.2217/17410541.3.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.298.14.1682 · DOI
- Issa AM : Personalized medicine and the practice of medicine in the 21st Century.Mcgill J. Med.10(1) , 53–57 (2007).
- 10.1016/j.coph.2006.02.007 · DOI
- 10.1001/archderm.144.3.389 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.06.075 · DOI
- 10.1001/archopht.126.3.422 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1092852900016254 · DOI
- 10.1097/01.mnh.0000214770.11609.fb · DOI
- 10.1172/JCI32133 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02263.x · DOI
- 10.2217/14622416.9.5.585 · DOI
- 10.1517/14656566.8.13.2045 · DOI
- 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a6b2cf · DOI
- 10.1097/01.TP.0000136256.56873.41 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040023 · DOI
- 10.1021/pr034059r · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00458.x · DOI
- 10.1300/J010v21n02_07 · DOI
- 10.1093/ndt/gfl329 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01932.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2005.00478.x · DOI
- 10.1093/hsw/31.2.137 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11606-008-0628-7 · DOI
- Kasiske BL , CangroCB, HariharanS et al.: The evaluation of renal transplantation candidates: clinical practice guidelines.Am. J. Transplant.1(Suppl. 2) , 3–95 (2001).
- 10.1093/ndt/15.suppl_5.1 · DOI
- 10.1093/ndt/17.suppl_3.1 · DOI
- 10.1503/cmaj.1041588 · DOI
- 10.1080/0951839900030104 · DOI
- 10.3109/13561829809014090 · DOI
- Miles MB HubermanMA: Qualiative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Edition). Sage Publications CA USA (1994).
- Veatch RM : Cross Cultural Perspectives in Medical Ethics (2nd Edition). Jones & Bartlett Publishers MA USA (2000).
- Fox RC SwazeyJP: The Courage to Fail: A Social View of Organ Transplants and Dialysis (Revised Edition). Transaction Publishers NJ USA (2002).
- 10.1159/000180121 · DOI
- Montgomery K : How Doctors Think: Clinical Judgment and the Practice of Medicine. Oxford University Press NY USA (2006). · DOI
- 10.1681/ASN.2009030236 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0041-1345(97)00868-3 · DOI
- Doucet H Dion-LabrieM DurandC Boutin-GanacheI: Genomics and modes of democratic dialogue : an analysis of two projects. In : Genomics and Public Health: Socio-Ethical and Legal Perspectives. Knoppers BM (Ed.). Martinus Nijhoff International (Brill) Leinden Netherlands 287–304 (2006).
- 10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60152-4 · DOI
- 10.1177/0306312707083489 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01027.x · DOI
- Singapore Ministry of Health. Results of the public consultation on proposed amendments to the Human Organ Transplant Act. January 2009 www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20090112/Press%20Release%20-%20Public%20Consult%20Results%20(Final).pdf
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erdmann, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Bozzaro, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dion-Labrie, M., Fortin, M.-C., Hébert, M.-J., & Doucet, H.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Hôpital Notre-Dame (CA)
- Venue
- Personalized Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 485-499
- ISSN
- 1741-0541 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-828X
- OpenAlex
- W2004738774
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personalized Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- kidney transplantation, patient selection, clinical decision-making, Quebec
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
