Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23547565›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2013

Biobanking research on oncological residual material: a framework between the rights of the individual and the interest of society.

Luciana Caenazzo, Pamela Tozzo, Renzo Pegoraro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021
    Article
  7. The Future of Biobanking: What Is Next?Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. How Sensitive Is Genetic Data?Biopreservation and biobanking · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Luciana CaenazzoDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121 Padua, Italy. luciana.caenazzo@unipd.it
Pamela Tozzo
Renzo Pegoraro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe tissue biobanking of specific biological residual materials, which constitutes a useful resource for medical/scientific research, has raised some ethical issues, such as the need to define which kind of consent is applicable for biological residual materials biobanks. DISCUSSION: Biobank research cannot be conducted without considering arguments for obtaining the donors' consent: in this paper we discuss to what extent consent in biobank research on oncological residual materials has to be required, and what type of consent would be appropriate in this context, considering the ethical principles of donation, solidarity, protection of the donors' rights and the requirements of scientific progress. Regarding the relationship between informed consent and tissue collection, storage and research, we have focused on two possible choices related to the treatment of data and samples in the biobank: irreversible and reversible anonymization of the samples, distinguishing between biobank research on residual materials for which obtaining consent is necessary and justified, and biobank research for which it is not. The procedures involve different approaches and possible solutions that we will seek to define. The consent for clinical research reported in the Helsinki Declaration regards research involving human beings and for this reason it is subordinate to specific and detailed information on the research projects. SUMMARY: An important ethical aspect in regard to the role of Biobanks is encouraging sample donation. For donors, seeing human samples being kept rather than discarded, and seeing them become useful for research highlights the importance of the human body and improves the attitude towards donation. This process might also facilitate the giving of informed consent more willingly, and with greater trust.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityNeoplasmsPatient RightsSocial ResponsibilityBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchHumansInformed Consent

Identifiers

PMID23547565
PMCPMC3616854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.