Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24565022›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2013

Maintaining respect and fairness in the usage of stored shared specimens.

Takafira Mduluza, Nicholas Midzi, Donold Duruza, Paul Ndebele

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Takafira Mduluza
Nicholas Midzi
Donold Duruza
Paul Ndebele

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvery year, research specimens are shipped from one institution to another as well as across national boundaries. A significant proportion of specimens move from poor to rich countries. Concerns are always raised on the future usage of the stored specimens shipped to research institutions from developing countries. Creating awareness of the processes is required in all sectors involved in biomedical research. To maintain fairness and respect in sharing biomedical specimens and research products requires safeguarding by Ethics Review Committees in both provider and recipient institutions. Training in basic ethical principles in research is required to all sectors involved in biomedical research so as to level up the research playing field. DISCUSSION: By agreeing to provide specimens, individuals and communities from whom samples are collected would have placed their trust and all ensuing up-keep of the specimens to the researchers. In most collaborative set-up, laid down material transfer agreements are negotiated and signed before the shipment of specimens. Researchers, research ethics committees (RECs) and institutions in the countries of origin are supposed to serve as overseers of the specimens. There is need to advocate for honesty in sample handling and sharing, and also need to oversee any written commitments by researchers, RECs and institutions at source as well as in recipient institution. Commitments from source RECs and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and in the receiving institution on overseeing the future usage of stored specimens are required; including the ultimate confirmation abiding by the agreement. Training in ethical issues pertaining to sample handling and biomedical research in general is essential at all levels of academic pursuit. While sharing of biological specimens and research data demands honesty and oversight by ethical regulatory agents from both institutions in developing country and recipient institutions in developed countries. CONCLUDING SUMMARY: Archiving of biological specimens requires reconsideration for the future of biomedical findings and scientific break-throughs. Biomedical ethical regulations still need to established clear viable regulations that have vision for the future of science through shared and archived samples. This discussion covers and proposes essential points that need to be considered in view of future generations and scientific break-throughs. The discussion is based on the experience of working in resource-limited settings, the local regulatory laws and the need to refine research regulations governing sharing and storage of specimens for the future of science.

Indexed as

AfricaBiomedical ResearchDeveloping CountriesEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchHumansInternational CooperationResearch PersonnelSpecimen HandlingTrust

Identifiers

PMID24565022
PMCPMC3878314

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.