Table 1. : Arguments in favor of the disclosure of IFs, arguments opposed to disclosure and arguments that caution about disclosure, presented in the reviewed literature. The overall conclusion of the article regarding disclosure is also stated.

Author/s and date	Reasons offered on the disclosure of IFs	Conclusion of the article
Ali-Khan et al, 200911	Anti-disclosure: IFs discovered at an early stage of research; when the accompanying anxiety and possible discrimination and stigmatization outweigh potential clinical utility; potential information overload; increased time and staff expertise needed meaning that not all IFs can be analyzed and communicated; physical and psychological risks associated with IFs without clear and proximate importance discovered in minors, for example late-onset conditions and non-medical conditions	In the context of whole genome sequencing, disclosure of IFs should be done with caution
	Caution: respecting the subject's autonomy against unwanted paternalism, except in unanticipated situations; implications for family members, the community and relevant population groups
Botkin, 199516	Caution: respecting the subject's autonomy against unwanted paternalism, except in unanticipated situations when beneficence as judged by the medical professional should come first	Disclosure of IFs should be done with caution
Caulfield et al, 200822	Pro-disclosure: confirmed clinical utility and the possibility of treatment or prevention	In favor of qualified disclosure, with more emphasis on favoring disclosure
	Caution: implications for family members, the community and relevant population groups
Cho, 200817	Pro-disclosure: confirmed clinical utility and the existence of an effective intervention or prevention, for example information about susceptibility to environmental factors or reproductive information	In favor of qualified disclosure
	Anti-disclosure: unavailability of the necessary expertise to verify and assess IFs; ‘therapeutic misconception' lack of an ongoing relationship between researcher and research participant when future IFs are involved
	Caution: implications for family members, the community and relevant population groups
Clayton, 200818	Pro-disclosure: confirmed clinical utility and the possibility of treatment or prevention	Disclosure of future IFs should be done with caution
	Anti-disclosure: if research participants have not been prepared for the possibility of disclosure or the IF does not have grave consequences when future IFs are involved
Hens et al, 201119	Pro-disclosure: serious and treatable, which can override parental wishes for non-disclosure	In the context of minors, disclosure of IFs should be done with caution
	Anti-disclosure: ‘therapeutic misconception' physical and psychological risks associated with IFs without clear and proximate importance discovered in minors, for example late-onset conditions and non-medical conditions
Kaye et al, 201012	Pro-disclosure: confirmed clinical utility and the possibility of treatment or prevention	In favor of qualified disclosure
	Anti-disclosure: the subject's right not to know coupled with an IF that is not so serious, untreatable and/or of uncertain significance
	Caution: implications for family members, the community and relevant population groups
Kohane et al, 200613	Anti-disclosure: information overload and too high follow-up times and costs, discouraging new forms of genetic testing	Disclosure of IFs should be done with caution, and the generation of IFs should be limited as much as possible
McGuire et al, 200823	Pro-disclosure: confirmed clinical utility and the possibility of treatment or prevention, which can also argue for disclosure to family members and third parties, overriding the wishes of the original subject	In favor of qualified disclosure, with special attention given to a family-centered approach
	Caution: implications for family members, the community and relevant population groups
Parker and Majeske, 199520	Caution: respecting the subject's autonomy against compulsory disclosure; implications for family members, the community and relevant population groups	Disclosure of IFs should be done with caution
Tabor and Cho, 200721	Anti-disclosure: IFs discovered at an early stage of research, because of the increased potential of harm; potential information overload	Disclosure of IFs should be done with caution
Van Ness, 20088	Pro-disclosure: confirmed clinical utility and the possibility of treatment or prevention	In favor of qualified disclosure, especially in the early stages of genomic research
	Anti-disclosure: IFs discovered at an early stage of research
Wachbroit, 19983	Anti-disclosure: when the accompanying anxiety and possible discrimination and stigmatization outweigh potential clinical utility	In favor of qualified disclosure
	Caution: implications for family members, the community and relevant population groups, which may argue in favor of disclosure