ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2017
"Forward-Thinking" in U.S. Biobanking.
Article in Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation among DNA banking consent forms: points for clinicians to bank on.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- The Availability of Human Biospecimens to Support Biomarker Research.Biomarker insights · 2022Review
- Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.American journal of human genetics · 2021Article
- Advancing Professionalization of Biobank Business Operations: Performance and Utilization.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2019Article
- Advancing Professionalization of Biobank Business Operations: A Worldwide Survey.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2019Article
- Which Results to Return: Subjective Judgments in Selecting Medically Actionable Genes.Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers · 2017Article
- Supporting Stewardship: Funding, Utilization, and Sustainability as Ethical Concerns in Networked Biobanking.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
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
aimsDo biobanks enact policies and plans that allow them to anticipate and respond to potential challenges? If a biobank has one such policy or plan, is it likely to have more? Using survey data from 456 U.S. biobanks, we assess four possible indicators of such "forward-thinking."
methodsWe present response frequencies and cross-tabulations regarding policies for return of results and ownership of specimens, and for having a formal business plan and a plan for what happens to specimens if the biobank closes. We analyze the relationships among these indicators, using chi-square for tests of statistical significance.
resultsPolicies-Sixty-two percent of biobanks have a policy about returning individual research results; 70% have a policy designating ownership of specimens and/or technology. Having these two policies is significantly related (p < 0.001). Plans-34% of biobanks have a formal business plan; 26% have a written plan for what will happen to the specimens if the biobank closes. Having these two plans is significantly related (p < 0.001). Relationships among indicators-only 7% of biobanks are forward-thinking across all four indicators; 12% are forward-thinking across none. DISCUSSION: The two policies we examined tend to occur together, as do the two plans. These policies and plans seem to tap different aspects of accountability and responsiveness. Specifically, the policies reflect issues most commonly raised in the ethical and legal literature on biobanking, while the plans are indicators of sustainability, a separate area of concern in biobanking.
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.