Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34903285›Full record

ReviewLife sciences, society and policy2021

Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance.

Kaya Akyüz, Gauthier Chassang, Melanie Goisauf, Łukasz Kozera, Signe Mezinska, Olga Tzortzatou, Michaela Th Mayrhofer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life sciences, society and policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Adults with Intellectual Disability and Consent to Precision Medicine Research: Using Supported Decision-Making to Facilitate First-Person Consent.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2026
    Article
  3. Emerging Ethical Challenges in Manufacturing of Cell-Based Medicines.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors.

Kaya AkyüzBBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria. kaya.akyuez@bbmri-eric.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2444-2095
Gauthier ChassangBBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6573-4035
Melanie GoisaufBBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3909-8071
Łukasz KozeraBBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9015-4518
Signe MezinskaBBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3190-100X
Olga TzortzatouBBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6223-1443
Michaela Th MayrhoferBBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria. michaela.th.mayrhofer@bbmri-eric.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6932-0473

Funding

H2020 Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation 857122
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biobanks act as the custodians for the access to and  responsible use of human biological samples and related data that have been generously donated by individuals to serve the public interest and scientific advances in the health research realm. Risk assessment has become a daily practice for biobanks and has been discussed from different perspectives. This paper aims to provide a literature review on risk assessment in order to put together a comprehensive typology of diverse risks biobanks could potentially face. Methodologically set as a typology, the conceptual approach used in this paper is based on the interdisciplinary analysis of scientific literature, the relevant ethical and legal instruments and practices in biobanking to identify how risks are assessed, considered and mitigated. Through an interdisciplinary mapping exercise, we have produced a typology of potential risks in biobanking, taking into consideration the perspectives of different stakeholders, such as institutional actors and publics, including participants and representative organizations. With this approach, we have identified the following risk types: economic, infrastructural, institutional, research community risks and participant's risks. The paper concludes by highlighting the necessity of an adaptive risk governance as an integral part of good governance in biobanking. In this regard, it contributes to sustainability in biobanking by assisting in the design of relevant risk management practices, where they are not already in place or require an update. The typology is intended to be useful from the early stages of establishing such a complex and multileveled biomedical infrastructure as well as to provide a catalogue of risks for improving the risk management practices already in place.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksPublicationsHumansRisk ManagementBiobankingBiobank managementData privacyELSIRisk assessmentRisk governanceStakeholdersSustainabilityTypology

Identifiers

PMID34903285
PMCPMC8666836

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.