Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34379215›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2021

Biobanks and Individual Health Related Findings: from an Obstacle to an Incentive.

Jurate Lekstutiene, Søren Holm, Eugenijus Gefenas

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Jurate LekstutieneInstitute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, M.K. Čiurlionio 21, 03101, Vilnius, Lithuania. jurate.lekstutiene@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2605-2389
Søren HolmCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Eugenijus GefenasInstitute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, M.K. Čiurlionio 21, 03101, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Vilnius University · LTUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the benefits biobanks are expected to bring, there have recently been concerns raised that the public and private non-profit biobanks still prevailing in Europe often fail to reach their initial objectives due to a variety of reasons, including a shortage of funding and insufficient utilization of collections. The necessity to find new ways to manage biobanks has been clearly recognized and one way to do this is to follow the success of some commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) companies in the biobanking field. This paper is focused on a double role the return of individual health related findings (IHRF) detected through the biobanking activities can play in the management of biobanks. These findings can be seen as an untapped opportunity to offer health related information to biobank participants. At the same time, the IHRF policy can also serve as an additional tool that can improve biobanking governance. This paper aims to consider diverse IHRF approaches as well as to explore some key ethical concerns related to them. In particular, it reveals how different accounts of personal autonomy shape consent policies related to IHRF and emphasizes ethical controversies related to the commercial DTC GT initiatives as well as some non-profit biobanks.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksMotivationEuropeHumansPersonal AutonomyConsentDirect-to-consumer genetic testingEthical issuesNon-profit biobankingReturn of individual health related findings

Identifiers

PMID34379215
PMCPMC8526456
OpenAlexW3190215864

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.