Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26479568›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2015

International Policies on Sharing Genomic Research Results with Relatives: Approaches to Balancing Privacy with Access.

Rebecca Branum, Susan M Wolf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Rebecca BranumPolicy director at the Minnesota State College Student Association and previously served as a Research Associate at the University of Minnesota's Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences.
Susan M WolfMcKnight Presidential Professor of Law, Medicine & Public Policy; Faegre Baker Daniels Professor of Law; Professor of Medicine; Faculty member, Center for Bioethics; and Chair, Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences at the University of Minnesota. She is one of three Principal Investigators on NIH/NCI/NHGRI grant 1-R01-CA154517 on return of genomic results to family members, including after the death of the proband.

Funding

Disclosing Genomic Incidental Findings in a Cancer Biobank: An ELSI ExperimentR01CA154517 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KOENIG, BARBARA A., PETERSEN, GLORIA M. · 2011 to 2015
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS 1-R01-CA154517NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Returning genetic research results to relatives raises complex issues. In order to inform the U.S. debate, this paper analyzes international law and policies governing the sharing of genetic research results with relatives and identifies key themes and lessons. The laws and policies from other countries demonstrate a range of approaches to balancing individual privacy and autonomy with family access for health benefit, offering important lessons for further development of approaches in the United States.

Indexed as

FamilyInternationalityAccess to InformationGenetic PrivacyGenetic ResearchGenomicsHealth PolicyHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26479568
PMCPMC4617202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.