Biobanking Research and Human Subjects Protections: Perspectives of IRB Leaders.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. 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 · 2019
   Article
2. Brain tumor biobanking in the precision medicine era: building a high-quality resource for translational research in neuro-oncology.Neuro-oncology practice · 2017
   Review
3. Ethics Reporting in Biospecimen and Genetic Research: Current Practice and Suggestions for Changes.PLoS biology · 2016
   Article
4. Investigator Experiences and Attitudes About Research With Biospecimens.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2015
   Article
5. IRB practices and policies regarding the secondary research use of biospecimens.BMC medical ethics · 2015
   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

6 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as