Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26186169›Full record

ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2015

Sharing and Reuse of Sensitive Data and Samples: Supporting Researchers in Identifying Ethical and Legal Requirements.

Murat Sariyar, Irene Schluender, Carol Smee, Stephanie Suhr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mind the Gap: From Tool to Knowledge Base.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2018
    Article
  12. Aspects of Modern Biobank Activity - Comprehensive Review.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2018
    Review
  13. Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Rare Disease Registries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  14. 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.

Murat Sariyar1 Institute of Pathology, Charite-University Medicine Berlin , Berlin, Germany .
Irene Schluender2 TMF-Technologie und Methodenplattform e. V. , Berlin, Germany .
Carol Smee3 The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute , UK ELIXER Hub, Hinxton, Cambridge, United Kingdom .
Stephanie Suhr4 European Molecular Biology Laboratory-European Bioinformatics Institute , UK ELIXER Hub, Hinxton, Cambridge, United Kingdom .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biological Specimen BanksData CollectionEthics, MedicalEuropean UnionHumansPublic PolicyQuality ControlResearch PersonnelSpecimen HandlingTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID26186169
PMCPMC4559154

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.