Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34315443›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2021

A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking.

Allan Sudoi, Jantina De Vries, Dorcas Kamuya

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Data sharing and community-engaged research.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Allan SudoiDepartment of Health Systems and Research Ethics (HSRE), KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine, Coast, P.O. Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya. asudoi@kemri-wellcome.org.
Jantina De VriesDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Dorcas KamuyaDepartment of Health Systems and Research Ethics (HSRE), KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine, Coast, P.O. Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107769/Z/10/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the rapid global growth of biobanking over the last few decades, and their potential for the advancement of health research, considerations specific to the sharing of benefits that accrue from biobanks have received little attention. Questions such as the types and range of benefits that can arise in biobanking, who should be entitled to those benefits, when they should be provided, by whom and in what form remain mostly unanswered. We conducted a scoping review to describe benefit sharing considerations and practices in biobanking in order to inform current and future policy and practice.

methodsDrawing on the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of the literature in three online databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar). We extracted and charted data to capture general characteristics, definitions and examples of benefits and benefit sharing, justification for benefit sharing, challenges in benefit sharing, governance mechanisms as well as proposed benefit sharing mechanisms.

results29 articles published between 1999 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The articles included 5 empirical and 24 non-empirical studies. Only 12 articles discussed benefit sharing as a stand-alone subject, while the remaining 17 integrated a discussion of benefits as one issue amongst others. Major benefit sharing challenges in biobanking were found to be those associated with uncertainties around the future use of samples and in resultant benefits.

conclusionMost of the benefit sharing definitions and approaches currently in use for biobanking are similar to those used in health research. These approaches may not recognise the distinct features of biobanking, specifically relating to uncertainties associated with the sharing and re-use of samples. We therefore support approaches that allow decisions about benefit sharing to be made progressively once it is apparent who samples are to be shared with, the intended purpose and expected benefits. We also highlight gaps in key areas informing benefit sharing in biobanking and draw attention to the need for further empirical research.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksEmpirical ResearchHumansBenefitsBenefit sharingBiobankingBiobanksEthicsSample sharing

Identifiers

PMID34315443
PMCPMC8317360

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.