ReviewFrontiers in medicine2021
Adolescent Assent and Reconsent for Biobanking: Recent Developments and Emerging Ethical Issues.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Involvement of children and young people in the conduct of health research: A rapid umbrella review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Participant Perspectives on Data Sharing in Clinical Craniofacial Research: Qualitative Interviews With Participants With Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Caregivers.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations in genomic research.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Review
- Community Review Boards offer a path to research equity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of multimodal participant recruitment in SPARK, a large, online longitudinal research study of autism.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Biobanking and consenting to research: a qualitative thematic analysis of young people's perspectives in the North East of England.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Ethical considerations of genetic and genomic testing in pediatric oncology: A narrative review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research biobanks that enroll minors face important practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges in reconsenting participants when they reach the age of 18. Federal regulations governing research in the United States provide minimal guidance and allow for a range of practices, including waiving the requirement to obtain reconsent. Some commentators have argued that institutional review boards should indeed grant such waivers, given the low risks of biobank-based research and the impracticality of contacting all participants when they turn 18. There is also significant ethical debate about the age at which adolescents can make authentic, autonomous decisions regarding their research participation. This paper reviews these issues in detail, describes the current state of the ethical discussion, and outlines evidence-based policies for enrolling minors into research biobanks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.