ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2015
Investigator Experiences and Attitudes About Research With Biospecimens.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Researchers' Perspectives Regarding Ethical Issues of Biobank Research in the Arab Region.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2024Article
- Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Ethical issues related to clinical research and rare diseases: 15th Gordon L. Snider Critical Issues Workshop, April 1, 2016, Bethesda, Maryland.Translational science of rare diseases · 2017Article
- "It's all about trust": reflections of researchers on the complexity and controversy surrounding biobanking in South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To advance scientific knowledge about human diseases and effective therapeutic treatments, investigators need access to human biospecimens and associated data. However, regulatory and procedural requirements may impede investigators' efforts to share biospecimens and data within and across institutions. Although a number of studies have explored experiences and attitudes of study participants and others about biospecimen and data sharing, less is known about investigators' perspectives. We conducted an electronic survey to learn about investigators' experiences and attitudes about research with biospecimens and associated data. A total of 114 practicing scientists from a pool of 60 university medical schools with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) participated. We found a high degree of variability in investigators' experiences with institutional review boards (IRBs) when seeking approval to conduct biospecimen research, as well as differences in approaches to informed consent for the collection of specimens. Participants also expressed concerns that the risks of biospecimen research may be overestimated by IRBs. This research suggests that the current regulatory environment for human research protections may require reconsideration with regard to standards for collection, use, and sharing of biospecimens and data.
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.