Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28125076›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2017

Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study.

Stephanie C Chen, Benjamin E Berkman, Sara Chandros Hull

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Stephanie C ChenDepartment of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Benjamin E BerkmanDepartment of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9098-0799
Sara Chandros HullDepartment of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8742-4997

Funding

NHGRI/DIR Bioethics CoreZIDHG200347 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BERKMAN, BENJAMIN · 2010 to 2025
$15.5M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HG999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFacilitating genomic research may require the use of samples and data collected via consent processes that did not include specific descriptions of secondary uses. We explore whether a waiver of consent with notification and the option to withdraw (WNOW) is a viable alternative to written informed consent for secondary uses of samples and data.

methodsWe developed a retrospective case study of a rare-disease protocol involving 1,978 participants that implemented WNOW for genomic data-sharing activities. We analyzed institutional review board and investigator records and conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with key staff members.

resultsWNOW was largely successful at achieving its goals in this case, although the recontact effort, relative to proceeding with a waiver, decreased participation in genomic data sharing by 13.8% (n = 253), primarily because 224 letters were returned as undeliverable. A small number of participants responded (n = 89), and some of them expressed confusion and frustration. In the pediatric arm of the study, the research may have been practicable without a waiver, given the relationship between the pediatric clinicians and families.

conclusionThe practicability of conducting research on existing specimens without a waiver of informed consent, and whether WNOW is a viable alternative, depend on contextual factors, including a reliable way to communicate with participants.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

Indexed as

Duty to RecontactGenetic ResearchInformation DisseminationPatient ParticipationAdultChildFeasibility StudiesHumansInformed ConsentRare DiseasesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28125076
PMCPMC6097706

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.