Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25101229›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

Newspaper coverage of biobanks.

Ubaka Ogbogu, Maeghan Toews, Adam Ollenberger, Pascal Borry, Helene Nobile, Manuela Bergmann, Timothy Caulfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Trust and Support for Cancer Research Biobanks: Insights from Cancer Patients in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  3. Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors.

Ubaka OgboguFaculties of Law and Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada ; Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada.
Maeghan ToewsHealth Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada.
Adam OllenbergerHealth Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada.
Pascal BorryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium.
Helene NobileDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium ; Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition , Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal , Germany.
Manuela BergmannDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition , Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal , Germany.
Timothy CaulfieldHealth Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada ; Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Biobanks are an important research resource that provides researchers with biological samples, tools and data, but have also been associated with a range of ethical, legal and policy issues and concerns. Although there have been studies examining the views of different stakeholders, such as donors, researchers and the general public, the media portrayal of biobanks has been absent from this body of research. This study therefore examines how biobanking has been represented in major print newspapers from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States to identify the issues and concerns surrounding biobanks that have featured most prominently in the print media discourse. Methods. Using Factiva, articles published in major broadsheet newspapers in Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia were identified using specified search terms. The final sample size consisted of 163 articles. Results. Majority of articles mentioned or discussed the benefits of biobanking, with medical research being the most prevalent benefit mentioned. Fewer articles discussed risks associated with biobanking. Researchers were the group of people most quoted in the articles, followed by biobank employees. Biobanking was portrayed as mostly neutral or positive, with few articles portraying biobanking in a negative manner. Conclusion. Reporting on biobanks in the print media heavily favours discussions of related benefits over risks. Members of the scientific research community appear to be a primary source of this positive tone. Under-reporting of risks and a downtrend in reporting on legal and regulatory issues suggests that the print media views such matters as less newsworthy than perceived benefits of biobanking.

Indexed as

BiobanksConsentELSIEvidence-based policyMedia representationsPrivacyPublic perceptions

Identifiers

PMID25101229
PMCPMC4121587

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.