Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31462969›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2019

Managing "incidental findings" in biobank research: Recommendations of the Taiwan biobank.

Jui-Chu Lin, Wesley Wei-Wen Hsiao, Chien-Te Fan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Integrating population-based biobanks: Catalyst for advances in precision health.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Informed Consent in the Newly Established Biobank.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    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

3 authors.

Jui-Chu LinCollege of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Wesley Wei-Wen HsiaoLaw & Technology Innovation Center, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Chien-Te FanInstitute of Law for Science and Technology, National Tsing Hua University, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, ROC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this article, incidental findings (IF) refer to unforeseen findings made possible through biobanking research and advances in medical diagnostic technologies that raise issues regarding the obligation and/or responsibility of biobank-users and biobanks to return clinically significant information to participants. The World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Taipei (2016) highlights the possibility of encountering IF and requires that research on biospecimens address biobank feedback policies in their informed consent process, leaving open the possibility that the policy may be "no return". As clinicians and researchers begin to use these "resources", the possibility of finding clinically significant IF is becoming a reality. DISCUSSION: In line with the WMA's Declaration of Taipei, a pragmatic approach is needed to deal with the issue of returning IF in biobank governance. Indeed, the impacts and concerns associated with the return of IF differ across different stakeholder groups and jurisdictions. Therefore, the framework governing IF return needs to be custom-built, taking into account the nature of each research project and the unique features of biobanks. To this end, in addition to facilitating biobank transparency, establishing an endurable and horizontal connection among biobanks and clinical institutions under a public health system will improve efficiency and effectiveness. Hence, subject to contemporary Taiwanese ethical and/or legal regulations, this article argues for the establishment of an updated framework for imaging-related and genetic-related IF return within the Taiwan Biobank (TWB), mainly based on a limited obligation to disclose life-threatening information revealed by imaging, but not genetic, information. SUMMARY: After discussing some of the ethical, legal and social issues encountered by the TWB and accounting for the experiences of other international biobanks, we propose a systematic framework for returning IF, mainly on a "limited obligation" basis, which offers better and more comprehensive protection for biobank-participants' rights and health.

Indexed as

BiobanksBioethicsEGF, Ethical Governance FrameworkELSI, Ethical, Legal and Social ImplicationsESC, European Society of CardiologyFrameworkGNC, German National CohortGP, General PractitionersIF, Incidental FindingsIncidental findingIRBs, Institutional Review BoardsMRI, Magnetic Resonance ImagingNHI, National Health InsuranceNIH, National Institutes of HealthP3G, Public Population Project in Genomics and SocietyThe WMA Declaration of Taipei (2016)TWB, Taiwan BiobankUNESCO, United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural OrganizationWMA, World Medical Association

Identifiers

PMID31462969
PMCPMC6709371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.