ArticleBMC medical ethics2015
IRB practices and policies regarding the secondary research use of biospecimens.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Your Tumour Can Save Lives": Re-examining Singapore's Consent Procedures for the Use of De-identified Bio-specimens in Research.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Whole genome sequencing in (recurrent) glioblastoma: challenges related to informed consent procedures and data sharing.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
- Establishing a Pregnancy Lyme Disease Biobank.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- BEYOND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND SECURITY CONTROLS FOR ACCESSING CONFIDENTIAL SURVEY DATA IN THE UNITED STATES: ENGAGING DATA USERS IN DATA PROTECTION.The Journal of privacy and confidentiality · 2023Article
- Clarifying how to deploy the public interest criterion in consent waivers for health data and tissue research.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Ethical Issues in Research and Development of Epigenome-wide Technologies.Epigenetics insights · 2020Article
- Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Sexual and gender minority youth's perspectives on sharing de-identified data in sexual health and HIV prevention research.Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP · 2019Article
- Comparing human and mouse salivary glands: A practice guide for salivary researchers.Oral diseases · 2019Review
- Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.Human genomics · 2018Article
- Transparency and choice in learning healthcare systems.Learning health systems · 2018Article
- Brain tumor biobanking in the precision medicine era: building a high-quality resource for translational research in neuro-oncology.Neuro-oncology practice · 2017Review
- Heterogeneity of Human Research Ethics Committees and Research Governance Offices across Australia: An observational study.The Australasian medical journal · 2016Article
- To Share or Not to Share? A Survey of Biomedical Researchers in the U.S. Southwest, an Ethnically Diverse Region.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs sharing and secondary research use of biospecimens increases, IRBs and researchers face the challenge of protecting and respecting donors without comprehensive regulations addressing the human subject protection issues posed by biobanking. Variation in IRB biobanking policies about these issues has not been well documented.
methodsThis paper reports on data from a survey of IRB Administrative Directors from 60 institutions affiliated with the Clinical and Translation Science Awards (CTSAs) about their policies and practices regarding secondary use and sharing of biospecimens. Specifically, IRB ADs were asked about consent for future use of biospecimens, assignment of risk for studies using biobanked specimens, and sharing of biospecimens/data.
resultsOur data indicate that IRBs take varying approaches to protocol review, risk assessment, and data sharing, especially when specimens are not anonymized.
conclusionUnclear or divergent policies regarding biospecimen research among IRBs may constitute a barrier to advancing genetic studies and to inter-institutional collaboration, given different institutional requirements for human subjects protections.
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.