ArticleJournal of community genetics2018
How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF).
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of researchers' and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Biorepositories For Global Rare Disease Research: A Narrative Review.Current rheumatology reports · 2025Review
- Applying Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable Principles to Biospecimens and Biobanks.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2024Article
- An overview of Synlab SDN Biobank's quality control system.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Standard operating procedures for biobank in oncology.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Recommendations for a Dutch Sustainable Biobanking Environment.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2021Article
- Facing new challenges to informed consent processes in the context of translational research: the case in CARPEM consortium.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Enhancing Cooperation Between Academic Biobanks and Biomedical Industry: Better Mutual Understanding and New Collaborative Models Are Needed.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2020Article
- Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Review
- Current practices for access, compensation, and prioritization in biobanks. Results from an interview study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Currently, a great deal of biomedical research in fields such as epidemiology, clinical trials and genetics is reliant on vast amounts of biological and phenotypic information collected and assembled in biobanks. While many resources are being invested to ensure that comprehensive and well-organised biobanks are able to provide increased access to, and sharing of biomedical samples and information, many barriers and challenges remain to such responsible and extensive sharing. Germane to the discussion herein is the barrier to collecting and sharing bioresources related to the lack of proper recognition of researchers and clinicians who developed the bioresource. Indeed, the efforts and resources invested to set up and sustain a bioresource can be enormous and such work should be easily traced and properly recognised. However, there is currently no such system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to those doing this work or the bioresource institution itself. As a beginning of a solution to the "recognition problem", the Bioresource Research Impact Factor/Framework (BRIF) initiative was proposed almost a decade and a half ago and is currently under further development. With the ultimate aim of increasing awareness and understanding of the BRIF, in this article, we contribute the following: (1) a review of the objectives and functions of the BRIF including the description of two tools that will help in the deployment of the BRIF, the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB); (2) the results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and (3) a brief analysis of the ethical dimensions of the BRIF which allow it to be a positive contribution to responsible 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.