Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21252333›Full record

ArticleScience (New York, N.Y.)2011

Research ethics. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf.

S B Trinidad, S M Fullerton, E J Ludman, G P Jarvik, E B Larson, W Burke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science (New York, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. "A Double-Edged Sword": A Brief History of Genomic Data Governance and Genetic Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2016
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Precision medicine informatics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

S B TrinidadDepartment of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98185, USA. sbtrini@uw.edu
S M Fullerton
E J Ludman
G P Jarvik
E B Larson
W Burke

Funding

Furthering scientific understanding of mechanisms underlying resilience to the effects of AD pathology by incorporating state of the art quantification of gliosis, inflammation, & synaptic toxicityU01AG006781 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CRANE, PAUL K, LARSON, ERIC B · 1986 to 2020
$39.3M
Development and Use of Network Infrastructure for High-Throughput GWA StudiesU01HG004610 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI LARSON, ERIC B · 2007 to 2010
$4.2M
Genetic Discovery and Application in a Clinical Setting Continuing a PartnershipU01HG006375 · NHGRI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI JARVIK, GAIL PAIRITZ, LARSON, ERIC B · 2011 to 2014
$4.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG004610NHGRI NIH HHS U01-HG-004610NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006375NIA NIH HHS U01 AG006781
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksGenomicsInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentElectronic Health RecordsEthics, ResearchGenetic ResearchHumansPolicyPublic OpinionResearcher-Subject Relations

Identifiers

PMID21252333
PMCPMC3044500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.