Consent and internet-enabled human genomics.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Information and Communication Technologies, Genes, and Peer-Production of Knowledge to Empower Citizens' Health.Science and engineering ethics · 2018
   Article
2. "The Google of Healthcare": enabling the privatization of genetic bio/databanking.Annals of epidemiology · 2016
   Review
3. Ethical issues in consumer genome sequencing: Use of consumers' samples and data.Applied & translational genomics · 2016
   Article
4. Respecting Autonomy Over Time: Policy and Empirical Evidence on Re-Consent in Longitudinal Biomedical Research.Bioethics · 2016
   Article
5. Health research 2.0: The use in research of personal fitness or health data shared on social network raises both scientific and ethical concerns.EMBO reports · 2014
   Article
6. Adapting standards: ethical oversight of participant-led health research.PLoS medicine · 2013
   Article
7. Ethical issues in health research with novel online sources.American journal of public health · 2012
   Article
8. Customers or research participants? Guidance for research practices in commercialization of personal genomics.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2012
   Article
9. Crowdsourced health research studies: an important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem.Journal of medical Internet research · 2012
   Article
10. Genetic contributions to intergroup responses: a cautionary perspective.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2012
    Article
11. Genomics and privacy: implications of the new reality of closed data for the field.PLoS computational biology · 2011
    Review
12. Are the kids really all right? Direct-to-consumer genetic testing in children: are company policies clashing with professional norms?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Web-based, participant-driven studies yield novel genetic associations for common traits.2010

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as