Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33441306›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2021

Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research.

Mackenzie Graham, Nina Hallowell, Berge Solberg, Ari Haukkala, Joanne Holliday, Angeliki Kerasidou, Thomas Littlejohns, Elizabeth Ormondroyd, John-Arne Skolbekken, Marleena Vornanen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2021. 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. 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

11 authors.

Mackenzie GrahamWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK mackenzie.graham@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6870-1370
Nina HallowellEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Berge SolbergDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Ari HaukkalaFaculty of Social Sciences; Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Joanne HollidayNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Angeliki KerasidouEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Thomas LittlejohnsNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Elizabeth OrmondroydNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John-Arne SkolbekkenDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Marleena VornanenCenter for Population, Health and Society, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Northern European Returning Results Network

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203132/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 213081/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A rapidly growing proportion of health research uses 'secondary data': data used for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected. Do researchers using secondary data have an obligation to disclose individual research findings to participants? While the importance of this question has been duly recognised in the context of primary research (ie, where data are collected from participants directly), it remains largely unexamined in the context of research using secondary data. In this paper, we critically examine the arguments for a moral obligation to disclose individual research findings in the context of primary research, to determine if they can be applied to secondary research. We conclude that they cannot. We then propose that the nature of the relationship between researchers and participants is what gives rise to particular moral obligations, including the obligation to disclose individual results. We argue that the relationship between researchers and participants in secondary research does not generate an obligation to disclose. However, we also argue that the biobanks or data archives which collect and provide access to secondary data may have such an obligation, depending on the nature of the relationship they establish with participants.

Indexed as

Moral ObligationsResearch PersonnelHumansethicsgenethicsresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID33441306
PMCPMC8479733

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.