Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25228924›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2014

Re-contacting participants for inclusion in the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP): Findings from three case-control studies of lung cancer.

Michele L Cote, M Jay Harrison, Angela S Wenzlaff, Ann G Schwartz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 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
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michele L CoteDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 4100 John R. Mailstop: MM04EP, Detroit, Michigan 48201 USA ; Karmanos Cancer Institute, Population Studies and Disparities Research Program, Detroit, MI USA.
M Jay HarrisonCenter for Molecular Medicine and Human Genetics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI USA.
Angela S WenzlaffDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 4100 John R. Mailstop: MM04EP, Detroit, Michigan 48201 USA.
Ann G SchwartzDepartment of Oncology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 4100 John R. Mailstop: MM04EP, Detroit, Michigan 48201 USA ; Karmanos Cancer Institute, Population Studies and Disparities Research Program, Detroit, MI USA.
Wayne State University · USThe Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Tumor Biology and Microenvironment (Program 1)P30CA022453 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PAUL M STEMMER · 1985 to 2026
$68.4M
GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY OF LUNG CANCERR01CA060691 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWARTZ, ANN G. · 1995 to 2009
$6.2M
NCI NIH HHS N01 PC035145NCI NIH HHS P30 CA022453NCI NIH HHS R01 CA060691
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince January 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has required that all investigators who receive NIH support submit de-identified high-throughput genomic data to the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of re-consenting participants from three inactive studies, conducted from 2000 through 2009, to submit their data to dbGaP.

methodsParticipants were those enrolled in one of three prior population-based case-control studies of lung cancer who had given a DNA sample. Consent to release de-identified data to dbGaP took place via mailed forms and follow-up phone calls. Chi-squared tests were used to examine differences in re-contact and consent proportions between groups.

resultsA total of 2,471 participants were initially eligible for re-contact. Six hundred and thirty-eight participants were found to be deceased (n = 627) or did not give permission to re-contact (n = 11). Of the 1,833 remaining participants, 42.3% provided written consent, 37.0% could not be located, 13.7% verbally agreed to have their data released but never returned written consent, 5.3% refused, and 1.6% were too ill at the time of contact. There were significant differences in ability to locate participants by age, race, gender, and case-control status; however, once located, there were no differences in re-consent rates.

conclusionThis study demonstrates that while most previous study participants agreed to release data, a small proportion are opposed to submitting their data to dbGaP. In addition, it demonstrates the difficulty studies based on existing samples may have in locating inactive participants for re-consent.

Identifiers

PMID25228924
PMCPMC4165358
OpenAlexW2129730535

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.