ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2015
Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 145 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
145 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Pooled it
- Expanding the boundaries of previously obtained informed consent in research: Views from participants in the Personalised Risk-based Mammascreening study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Trial
- Secondary use of health care data and left-over biosamples within the 'Medical Informatics Initiative' (MII): a quasi-randomized controlled evaluation of patient perceptions and preferences regarding the consent process.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Trial
- Comparison of Video, App, and Standard Consent Processes on Decision-Making for Biospecimen Research: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Trial
- Patient views on research use of clinical data without consent: Legal, but also acceptable?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Dissolution of Continuity of Ethical Governance in Data Science Health Research: Diagnostic and Response Framework for Lifecycle Oversight.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Feasibility, comprehension and applicability of broad consent in the emergency department: an exploratory mixed-methods study.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Future-use consent and human virome research: ethical challenges.Journal of virology · 2026Review
- When does broad consent expire? A temporal validity framework for biobank samples in induced pluripotent stem cell research.Research square · 2026Article
- Capturing attitudes towards research and data sharing in down syndrome (CARDS-DS): Piloting a novel parent-report measure.Social sciences & humanities open · 2026Article
- Evaluating the current neuro-oncology capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa: A questionnaire-based survey.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- Analysis of compliance and language use in broad informed consent forms in international multicenter clinical trials after the implementation of the 2018 common rule.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Deciding whether to donate fetal tissue for research.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Public attitudes towards consent for the donation of surplus frozen eggs to research.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- The Development of the Biobank Collections Valuator as an Automated Tool to Determine the Noneconomic Value of Sample Collections.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2026Article
- Research integrity and data ethics in AI-driven integrated healthcare: a critical appraisal.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- From Biobank to "Bio-Think-Tank": Functional Evolution of UK Biobank in Public Health Policy Making.Public health reviews · 2026Review
- Community and bioethicists' perspectives on iPSC research with biobanked samples collected using broad consent.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- Critical consideration towards broad consent by patient experts: results of a semi-structured interview study on the secondary use of medical data.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
85 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Different types of consent are used to obtain human biospecimens for future research. This variation has resulted in confusion regarding what research is permitted, inadvertent constraints on future research, and research proceeding without consent. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center's Department of Bioethics held a workshop to consider the ethical acceptability of addressing these concerns by using broad consent for future research on stored biospecimens. Multiple bioethics scholars, who have written on these issues, discussed the reasons for consent, the range of consent strategies, and gaps in our understanding, and concluded with a proposal for broad initial consent coupled with oversight and, when feasible, ongoing provision of information to donors. This article describes areas of agreement and areas that need more research and dialogue. Given recent proposed changes to the Common Rule, and new guidance regarding storing and sharing data and samples, this is an important and timely topic.
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.