Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28235748›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

The Effect of the General Data Protection Regulation on Medical Research.

John Mark Michael Rumbold, Barbara Pierscionek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Making the case for an International Childhood Cancer Data Partnership.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Integrating enterprise risk management to address AI-related risks in healthcare: Strategies for effective risk mitigation and implementation.Journal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

John Mark Michael RumboldFaculty of Science, Engineering and Computing, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3308-711X
Barbara PierscionekSchool of Science and Technology, 50 Shakespeare Street, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4FQ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8661-6353

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will impact on European data science. Particular concerns relating to consent requirements that would severely restrict medical data research have been raised.

objectiveOur objective is to explain the changes in data protection laws that apply to medical research and to discuss their potential impact.

methodsAnalysis of ethicolegal requirements imposed by the GDPR.

resultsThe GDPR makes the classification of pseudonymised data as personal data clearer, although it has not been entirely resolved. Biomedical research on personal data where consent has not been obtained must be of substantial public interest.

conclusionsThe GDPR introduces protections for data subjects that aim for consistency across the EU. The proposed changes will make little impact on biomedical data research.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityResearch DesignBiomedical ResearchHumansInformaticsanonymitydata protectiondata reportinginformaticsprivacy-preserving protocolspseudonymityresearch ethicsuntraceability

Identifiers

PMID28235748
PMCPMC5346164

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.