Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33635509›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2021

A framework for ethics review of applications to store, reuse and share tissue samples.

Shih-Ning Then, Wendy Lipworth, Cameron Stewart, Ian Kerridge

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The reuse of genetic information in research and informed consent.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Shih-Ning ThenAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Law School, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Australia. Shih-Ning.Then@qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8211-1868
Wendy LipworthSydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Cameron StewartFaculty of Law, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Ian KerridgeSydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The practice of biobank networking-where biobanks are linked together, and researchers share human tissue samples-is an increasingly common practice both domestically and internationally. The benefits from networking in this way are well established. However, there is a need for ethical oversight in the sharing of human tissue. Ethics committees will increasingly be called upon to approve the sharing of tissue and data with other researchers, often via biobanks, and little guidance currently exists for such committees. In this paper, we provide a structured approach to the ethical review of on-sharing of data and tissue for research purposes.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksEthics Committees, ResearchEthical ReviewHumansResearch PersonnelBiobank networksBiobanksEthics reviewHuman tissueResearch

Identifiers

PMID33635509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.