Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28306398›Full record

ArticleGenetic testing and molecular biomarkers2017

Returning Results: Let's Be Honest!

Bernice S Elger, Eva De Clercq

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Bernice S Elger1 Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel , Basel, Switzerland .
Eva De Clercq1 Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel , Basel, Switzerland .

Funding

Disclosing Genomic Incidental Findings in a Cancer Biobank: An ELSI ExperimentR01CA154517 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KOENIG, BARBARA A., PETERSEN, GLORIA M. · 2011 to 2015
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biobank research has the potential to return results that could have beneficial and even life-saving consequences for participants. This possibility raises some important questions, not only about the ethical duty to return results within a research setting, but also about participants' right to refuse results and researchers' responsibility to respect that choice. This article argues in favor of adopting a return-of-results policy that limits participants' ability to refuse clinically relevant and actionable results. We state that biobanks should allow donors only if they are aware of and agree to this return policy. If they do not agree to this, they retain the option not to participate in the biobank research. The aim of this article is to discuss the practical and ethical reasons in favor of this return-of-result policy and, thus, to underline the importance of "honesty" in biobanking regulations.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksHumansbiobankinghonestypolicyrefusalreturn of results

Identifiers

PMID28306398
PMCPMC5488257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.