ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2019
The Role of Participants in a Medical Information Commons.
Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ethical challenges of diversifying genomic data: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Hashtag who's missing? Lessons for genomic databases.Disability and health journal · 2021Article
- Genomic Data-Sharing Practices.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- What is a Medical Information Commons?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
- Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019Article
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
Meaningful participant engagement has been identified as a key contributor to the success of efforts to share data via a "Medical Information Commons" (MIC). We present findings from expert stakeholder interviews aimed at understanding barriers to engagement and the appropriate role of MIC participants. Although most interviewees supported engagement, they distinguished between individual versus collective forms. They also noted challenges including representation and perceived inefficiency, prompting reflection on political aspects of engagement and efficiency concerns.
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.