ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2010
Invited commentary: Population-based human subjects research in the era of enhanced privacy regulation.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Privacy seems to be of increasing public concern, as evidenced by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, a regulatory framework that appears to hinder access to data and thus to limit population-based research. A 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report urged Congress, via the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to develop a new approach to protecting privacy that would not employ the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In an accompanying article in the Journal, Nattinger et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(6):637-644) employ one of the constructs recommended in the IOM report: use of a centralized honest broker. Unfortunately, Nattinger et al.'s approach would not be acceptable to all institutional review boards. The IOM report also urged the HHS to reduce variability in interpretations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule by privacy boards through revised and expanded guidance and harmonization. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebalius has not acted upon any of the IOM report recommendations. The need to remove major barriers to human health research cannot be forgotten. At risk is America's progress in finding solutions to our most pressing health concerns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20660117What 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.