ArticlePublic health genomics2015
Extending the surrogacy analogy: applying the advance directive model to biobanks.
Article in Public health genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biobank donors and biobank governance face a conceptual challenge akin to clinical patients and their designated surrogate decision-makers, the necessity of making decisions and policies now that must be implemented under future unknown circumstances. We propose that biobanks take advantage of this parallel to learn lessons from the historical trajectory of advance directives and develop models analogous to current 'best practice' advance directives such as Values Histories and TheFive Wishes. We suggest how such models could improve biobanks' engagement both with communities and with individual donors by being more honest about the limits of current disclosure and eliciting information to ensure the protection of donor interests more robustly through time than current 'informed consent' processes in biobanking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.