Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29767375›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2018

Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective.

Lisa Eckstein, Margaret Otlowski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2018. 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.

Lisa EcksteinFaculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 89, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia. lisa.eckstein@utas.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7161-7521
Margaret OtlowskiFaculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 89, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens-traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions-as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable "tough" cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsAustraliaDecision MakingDisclosureEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchGenetic ResearchGenomicsGuidelines as TopicHumansResearch PersonnelResearch SubjectsSocial Control, FormalUncertaintyGenetic research/ethicsIncidental findingsPolicyResearch personnel/ethics

Identifiers

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.