Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32633816›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report2020

Rethinking the Importance of the Individual within a Community of Data.

Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Jonathan Beever

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Translating Commercial Health Data Privacy Ethics into Change.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Kayte Spector-Bagdady
Jonathan Beever

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
Genetic data partnerships: Enabling equitable access within academic/private data sharing agreementsK01HG010496 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SPECTOR-BAGDADY, KAYTE KELLEHER · 2019 to 2023
$875k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR002240NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG010496NHGRI NIH HHS K01HG010496
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Covid-19 crisis has underscored the importance of the collection and analysis of clinical and research data and specimens for ongoing work. The federal government recently completed a related revision of the human subjects research regulations, founded in the traditional principles of research ethics, but in this commentary, we argue that the analysis underpinning this revision overemphasized the importance of informed consent, given the low risks of secondary research. Governing the interests of a community is different from governing the interests of individuals, and here we suggest that, moving forward, the analyses of the risks of secondary research protocols be assessed from the perspective of the former.

Indexed as

COVID-19Research SubjectsBiomedical ResearchEthics Committees, ResearchFederal GovernmentGovernment RegulationHuman ExperimentationHumansInformed ConsentPolicy MakingResearch Designbioethicsbiospecimensdataresearch

Identifiers

PMID32633816
PMCPMC7771627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.