ArticleJournal of community genetics2018
Desiderata for digital consent in genomic research.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ethical aspects of human organ-on-chip models: A mapping review.Stem cell reports · 2025Review
- Consent as a compositional act - a framework that provides clarity for the retention and use of data.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2024Article
- Enhancing Data Protection in Dynamic Consent Management Systems: Formalizing Privacy and Security Definitions with Differential Privacy, Decentralization, and Zero-Knowledge Proofs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Framework and Practical Guidance for the Ethical Use of Electronic Methods for Communication With Participants in Medical Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
- Replacing Paper Informed Consent with Electronic Informed Consent for Research in Academic Medical Centers: A Scoping Review.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of a Stakeholder-Driven, Self-Contained Electronic Informed Consent Platform for Trio-Based Genomic Research Studies.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
Herein, we describe the characterization of a Digital Consent (DC) System to support current ethical-legal issues associated with challenges posed by informed consent for genomic research. A potential solution to support ongoing interaction with patients and allow control over how their data and samples are being used in genomic research can be Digital Consent based. But there are other challenges that need to be addressed, such as incidental findings when analyzing the results of genomic tests (not expected). This paper addresses security and privacy recommendations for the development of precision medicine, and the interoperability references of Health Information Standardization Organizations such as HL7 and IHE, as well as recent research in the field of ethics in Genomic Medicine. As a result of this work, ten key features that need to be further explored have been identified in order to support the realization of DC in Genomic Research.
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.