Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31527854›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2020

Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review.

Marieke A R Bak, M Corrette Ploem, Hakan Ateşyürek, Marieke T Blom, Hanno L Tan, Dick L Willems

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Data After Death: Post-Mortem Ethics of Burn Patient Records and Images.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Towards trust-based governance of health data research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Marieke A R BakSection of Medical Ethics, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. marieke.bak@amsterdamumc.nl.
M Corrette PloemSection of Health Law, Department of Social Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hakan AteşyürekFaculty of Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marieke T BlomDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanno L TanDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dick L WillemsSection of Medical Ethics, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants' death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders' perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants' death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased's previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.

Indexed as

AttitudeAdultAutopsyBiomedical ResearchEthics, ResearchFemaleGenetic PrivacyHumansInformed ConsentMalePatientsStakeholder Participation

Identifiers

PMID31527854
PMCPMC7080773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.