Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25351952›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical genetics2014

International requirements for consent in biobank research: qualitative review of research guidelines.

Irene Hirschberg, Hannes Kahrass, Daniel Strech

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The generic Informed Consent Service gICSJournal of translational medicine · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Irene HirschbergInstitute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine/Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences (CELLS), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Hannes KahrassInstitute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine/Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences (CELLS), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Daniel StrechInstitute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine/Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences (CELLS), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several stakeholders in the field of biobank research are currently developing and evaluating innovative consent procedures, and in doing so refer to national and international guidelines that regulate biomedical research. The objectives of this study were to present (1) a synthesis of all consent issues mentioned or required in guidelines that are of potential relevance to biobank research and (2) a detailed overview of similarities and differences between these guidelines. This analysis considered a purposive sample of the nine most internationally recognised research guidelines plus a national checklist for developing consent forms. The synthesis of all included research guidelines found 41 issues of potential relevance to consent procedures in biobank research. The guidelines differ substantially with respect to (1) how comprehensively they address these consent issues, (2) their definition and explanation of the issues and (3) how directly or indirectly the issues are mentioned. The set of 41 consent issues presented in this paper should be further developed in a continuous process. Our findings on the differences among major research guidelines also raise the issue of a more systematic development and revision process for these guidelines. The presented set of content issues potentially relevant to consent in biobank research can inform the balanced development or evaluation of consent forms, as well as the development and revision of corresponding research guidelines.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchGuidelines as TopicHumansEthicsGuidelines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.