ArticleBMC medical ethics2006
A biobank management model applicable to biomedical research.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Biobank consent preferences and implications for a mixed consent model: biomedical researchers vs. community stakeholders in a semi-urban Yoruba community, Nigeria.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Data Management in Biobanking: Strategies, Challenges, and Future Directions.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2024Review
- Revolutionizing Cancer Research: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Digital Biobanking.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Cancer oriented biobanks: A comprehensive review.Oncology reviews · 2018Article
- Bio-collections in autism research.Molecular autism · 2017Review
- Maintaining respect and fairness in the usage of stored shared specimens.BMC medical ethics · 2013Article
- An integrated systems biology approach to the study of preterm birth using "-omic" technology--a guideline for research.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2011Review
- Stem cell biobanks.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2010Article
- Custodianship as an ethical framework for biospecimen-based research.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2010Review
- Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (6 of 7): ethical considerations.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2010Review
- Evolutionary concepts in biobanking - the BC BioLibrary.Journal of translational medicine · 2009Article
- Ethics and biobanks.British journal of cancer · 2009Review
- Banking together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking.EMBO reports · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe work of Research Ethics Boards (REBs), especially when involving genetics research and biobanks, has become more challenging with the growth of biotechnology and biomedical research. Some REBs have even rejected research projects where the use of a biobank with coded samples was an integral part of the study, the greatest fear being the lack of participant protection and uncontrolled use of biological samples or related genetic data. The risks of discrimination and stigmatization are a recurrent issue. In light of the increasing interest in biomedical research and the resulting benefits to the health of participants, it is imperative that practical solutions be found to the problems associated with the management of biobanks: namely, protecting the integrity of the research participants, as well as guaranteeing the security and confidentiality of the participant's information.
methodsWe aimed to devise a practical and efficient model for the management of biobanks in biomedical research where a medical archivist plays the pivotal role as a data-protection officer. The model had to reduce the burden placed on REBs responsible for the evaluation of genetics projects and, at the same time, maximize the protection of research participants.
resultsThe proposed model includes the following: 1) a means of protecting the information in biobanks, 2) offers ways to provide follow-up information requested about the participants, 3) protects the participant's confidentiality and 4) adequately deals with the ethical issues at stake in biobanking.
conclusionUntil a governmental governance body is established in Quebec to guarantee the protection of research participants and establish harmonized guidelines for the management of biobanks in medical research, it is definitely up to REBs to find solutions that the present lack of guidelines poses. The model presented in this article offers a practical solution on a day-to-day basis for REBs, as well as researchers by promoting an archivist to a pivotal role in the process. It assures protection of all participants who altruistically donate their samples to generate and improve knowledge for better diagnosis and medical treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.