ReviewGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2017
Returning Results in Biobank Research: Global Trends and Solutions.
Review 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a genetic return of results service core.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Persuasive Appeals in Genetic Biobank Recruitment Campaigns: Social and Ethical Implications.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023Article
- Opt-in for secondary findings as part of diagnostic whole-exome sequencing: Real-life experience from an international diagnostic laboratory.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of factors influencing the willingness to donate biospecimens among guardians of children with cancer and adult cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Associations between the Willingness to Donate Samples to Biobanks and Selected Psychological Variables.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Current Status and Future Challenges of Biobank Research in Malaysia.Asian bioethics review · 2021Article
- Recommendations for a Dutch Sustainable Biobanking Environment.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2021Article
- Recommendations for Creating Codes of Conduct for Processing Personal Data in Biobanking Based on the GDPR art.40.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Article
- What Egyptians think. Knowledge, attitude, and opinions of Egyptian patients towards biobanking issues.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- 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
In many countries around the world, biobanks have become crucial resources for the conduct of biomedical research, facilitating many kinds of research, including international collaborations. The focus of this special issue is on a looming ethical issue that has become a focus of debate-the return of research results and incidental findings to biobank participants. Although the articles in this issue do not provide a final answer to the ethical, legal, and social dilemmas that arise in the context of the return of results, the intent of the collection is to approach this issue from multiple perspectives and within an international context spanning the United Kingdom, continental Europe including Eastern Europe, the United States, and the Middle East.
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.