ArticlePloS one2015
Sharing with More Caring: Coordinating and Improving the Ethical Governance of Data and Biomaterials Obtained from Children.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical issues in genomics research on neurodevelopmental disorders: a critical interpretive review.Human genomics · 2021Review
- Mixed methods study exploring parent engagement in child health research in British Columbia.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch on complex health conditions such as neurodevelopmental disorders increasingly relies on large-scale research and clinical studies that would benefit from data sharing initiatives. Organizations that share data stand to maximize the efficiency of invested research dollars, expedite research findings, minimize the burden on the patient community, and increase citation rates of publications associated with the data.
objectiveThis study examined ethics and governance information on websites of databases involving neurodevelopmental disorders to determine the availability of information on key factors crucial for comprehension of, and trust and participation in such initiatives.
methodsWe identified relevant databases identified using online keyword searches. Two researchers reviewed each of the websites and identified thematic content using principles from grounded theory. The content for each organization was interrogated using the gap analysis method.
resultsSixteen websites from data sharing organizations met our inclusion criteria. Information about types of data and tissues stored, data access requirements and procedures, and protections for confidentiality were significantly addressed by data sharing organizations. However, special considerations for minors (absent from 63%), controls to check if data and tissues are being submitted (absent from 81%), disaster recovery plans (absent from 81%), and discussions of incidental findings (absent from 88%) emerged as major gaps in thematic website content. When present, content pertaining to special considerations for youth, along with other ethics guidelines and requirements, were scattered throughout the websites or available only from associated documents accessed through live links.
conclusionThe complexities of sharing data acquired from children and adolescents will only increase with advances in genomic and neuro science. Our findings suggest that there is a need to improve the consistency, depth and accessibility of governance and policies on which these collaborations can lean specifically for vulnerable young populations.
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.