ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2015
Sharing and Reuse of Sensitive Data and Samples: Supporting Researchers in Identifying Ethical and Legal Requirements.
Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ENIGMA Brain Injury working group: approach, challenges, and potential benefits.Brain imaging and behavior · 2021Pooled it
- The Development of the Biobank Collections Valuator as an Automated Tool to Determine the Noneconomic Value of Sample Collections.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2026Article
- Imaging biobanks: operational limits, medical-legal and ethical reflections.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Review
- Data management strategy for a collaborative research center.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Rare diseases and space health: optimizing synergies from scientific questions to care.NPJ microgravity · 2022Review
- Sharing, reuse, and storage of biosamples among biomedical researchers in Jordan: Practice and concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- Legal and ethical framework for global health information and biospecimen exchange - an international perspective.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- What Egyptians think. Knowledge, attitude, and opinions of Egyptian patients towards biobanking issues.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- PhenoMeNal: processing and analysis of metabolomics data in the cloud.GigaScience · 2019Article
- On-demand virtual research environments using microservices.PeerJ. Computer science · 2019Article
- Mind the Gap: From Tool to Knowledge Base.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2018Article
- Aspects of Modern Biobank Activity - Comprehensive Review.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2018Review
- Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Rare Disease Registries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Article
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
Availability of and access to data and biosamples are essential in medical and translational research, where their reuse and repurposing by the wider research community can maximize their value and accelerate discovery. However, sharing human-related data or samples is complicated by ethical, legal, and social sensitivities. The specific ethical and legal requirements linked to sensitive data are often unfamiliar to life science researchers who, faced with vast amounts of complex, fragmented, and sometimes even contradictory information, may not feel competent to navigate through it. In this case, the impulse may be not to share the data in order to safeguard against unintentional misuse. Consequently, helping data providers to identify relevant ethical and legal requirements and how they might address them is an essential and frequently neglected step in removing possible hurdles to data and sample sharing in the life sciences. Here, we describe the complex regulatory context and discuss relevant online tools-one which the authors co-developed-targeted at assisting providers of sensitive data or biosamples with ethical and legal questions. The main results are (1) that the different approaches of the tools assume different user needs and prior knowledge of ethical and legal requirements, affecting how a service is designed and its usefulness, (2) that there is much potential for collaboration between tool providers, and (3) that enriched annotations of services (e.g., update status, completeness of information, and disclaimers) would increase their value and facilitate quick assessment by users. Further, there is still work to do with respect to providing researchers using sensitive data or samples with truly 'useful' tools that do not require pre-existing, in-depth knowledge of legal and ethical requirements or time to delve into the details. Ultimately, separate resources, maintained by experts familiar with the respective fields of research, may be needed while-in the longer term-harmonization and increase in ease of use will be very desirable.
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.