Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26412243›Full record

ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2015

'Pop-Up' Governance: developing internal governance frameworks for consortia: the example of UK10K.

Jane Kaye, Dawn Muddyman, Carol Smee, Karen Kennedy, Jessica Bell, UK10K

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Jane KayeHeLEX Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. jane.kaye@law.ox.ac.uk.
Dawn MuddymanWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Carol SmeeWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Karen KennedyNational Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
Jessica BellHeLEX Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3433-0265
UK10K

Funding

Wellcome Trust 096599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Innovations in information technologies have facilitated the development of new styles of research networks and forms of governance. This is evident in genomics where increasingly, research is carried out by large, interdisciplinary consortia focussing on a specific research endeavour. The UK10K project is an example of a human genomics consortium funded to provide insights into the genomics of rare conditions, and establish a community resource from generated sequence data. To achieve its objectives according to the agreed timetable, the UK10K project established an internal governance system to expedite the research and to deal with the complex issues that arose. The project's governance structure exemplifies a new form of network governance called 'pop-up' governance. 'Pop-up' because: it was put together quickly, existed for a specific period, was designed for a specific purpose, and was dismantled easily on project completion. In this paper, we use UK10K to describe how 'pop-up' governance works on the ground and how relational, hierarchical and contractual governance mechanisms are used in this new form of network governance.

Indexed as

GenomicsBiomedical ResearchClinical GovernanceEfficiency, OrganizationalHumansInformation DisseminationInformation ManagementUnited KingdomConsortiaGenomics-researchNetworks‘Pop-up’ governance

Identifiers

PMID26412243
PMCPMC4584211

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.