Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28077127›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

Navigating social and ethical challenges of biobanking for human microbiome research.

Kim H Chuong, David M Hwang, D Elizabeth Tullis, Valerie J Waters, Yvonne C W Yau, David S Guttman, Kieran C O'Doherty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Ethical Considerations in Microbial Therapeutic Clinical Trials.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2017
    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

7 authors.

Kim H ChuongDepartment of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
David M HwangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
D Elizabeth TullisAdult Cystic Fibrosis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Valerie J WatersDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Yvonne C W YauDepartment of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
David S GuttmanDepartment of Cell & Systems Biology, Centre for the Analysis of Genome Evolution & Function, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kieran C O'DohertyDepartment of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada. kieran.odoherty@uoguelph.ca.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiobanks are considered to be key infrastructures for research development and have generated a lot of debate about their ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI). While the focus has been on human genomic research, rapid advances in human microbiome research further complicate the debate. DISCUSSION: We draw on two cystic fibrosis biobanks in Toronto, Canada, to illustrate our points. The biobanks have been established to facilitate sample and data sharing for research into the link between disease progression and microbial dynamics in the lungs of pediatric and adult patients. We begin by providing an overview of some of the ELSI associated with human microbiome research, particularly on the implications for the broader society. We then discuss ethical considerations regarding the identifiability of samples biobanked for human microbiome research, and examine the issue of return of results and incidental findings. We argue that, for the purposes of research ethics oversight, human microbiome research samples should be treated with the same privacy considerations as human tissues samples. We also suggest that returning individual microbiome-related findings could provide a powerful clinical tool for care management, but highlight the need for a more grounded understanding of contextual factors that may be unique to human microbiome research.

conclusionsWe revisit the ELSI of biobanking and consider the impact that human microbiome research might have. Our discussion focuses on identifiability of human microbiome research samples, and return of research results and incidental findings for clinical management.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityDisclosureMicrobiotaPrivacyBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchCanadaCystic FibrosisEthics, ResearchHumansIncidental FindingsInformation DisseminationLungPublic HealthPublic OpinionBiobankCystic fibrosisIdentifiabilityIncidental findingsMicrobiomeResearch ethicsReturn of results

Identifiers

PMID28077127
PMCPMC5225618

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.