ReviewPediatrics2018
Reconsidering the Need for Reconsent at 18.
Review in Pediatrics, 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.
- Views of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and Their Oncologists Toward Patients' Participation in Genomic Research.Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2023Article
- Reconsenting paediatric research participants for use of identifying data.Journal of medical ethics · 2023Article
- The Promise of Patient-Derived Preclinical Models to Accelerate the Implementation of Personalised Medicine for Children with Neuroblastoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Hashtag who's missing? Lessons for genomic databases.Disability and health journal · 2021Article
- Adolescent Assent and Reconsent for Biobanking: Recent Developments and Emerging Ethical Issues.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Adapting Open Science and Pre-registration to Longitudinal Research.Infant and child developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prevalence of research with biological specimens has led to a debate over what type of consent is needed to obtain biological specimens from minors and store them for future studies. In most cases, parental permission is needed to obtain samples from minors. In addition, almost all commentators and guidelines maintain that researchers need the consent of the donors if they want to continue to store the samples and make them available for future studies after the donors reach the age of majority. In this Ethics Rounds, we argue that this near-consensus view is mistaken on the grounds that the agreement of the parents at the time of obtaining samples provides sufficient permission to store them and use them in research even after the donors turn 18 years old.
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.