ArticleBMC research notes2016
Secondary consent to biospecimen use in a prostate cancer biorepository.
Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Willingness to donate biosamples to a national biobank in Israel: a population-based cross-sectional survey.Israel journal of health policy research · 2026Article
- Perception of Polish patients with cancer of the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Trust and Support for Cancer Research Biobanks: Insights from Cancer Patients in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Article
- Understanding men's beliefs and concerns about linking health data in the context of precision medicine.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Health inequity drives disease biology to create disparities in prostate cancer outcomes.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2022Review
- Race, Trust in Doctors, Privacy Concerns, and Consent Preferences for Biobanks.Health communication · 2020Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiorepository research has substantial societal benefits. This is one of the few studies to focus on male willingness to allow future research use of biospecimens.
methodsThis study analyzed the future research consent questions from a prostate cancer biorepository study (N = 1931). The consent form asked two questions regarding use of samples in future studies (1) without and (2) with protected health information (PHI). Yes to both questions of use of samples was categorized as Yes-Always; Yes to without and No to with PHI was categorized as Yes-Conditional; No to without PHI was categorized as Never. We analyzed this outcome to determine significant predictors for consent to Yes-Always vs. Yes-Conditional.
results99.33 % consented to future use of samples; 88.19 % consented to future use without PHI, and among those men 10.2 % consented to future use with PHI. Comparing Yes Always and Yes Conditional responses, bivariate analyses showed that race, family history, stage of cancer, and grade of cancer (Gleason), were significant at the α = 0.05 level. Using stepwise multivariable logistic regression, we found that African-American men were significantly more likely to respond Yes Always when compared to White men (p < 0.001). Those with a family history of prostate cancer were significantly more likely to respond Yes Always (p = 0.002).
conclusionsThere is general willingness to consent to future use of specimens without PHI among men.
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.