ArticleRomanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
Health data protection and confidentiality in EU BTC legislation: ethical and safety standards.
Article in Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe current paper focuses on the ethical approaches to data protection and confidentiality (DP&C) and the quality and safety (Q&S) requirements in the European Union (EU) blood, tissues and cells (BTC) legislation, namely: Directive 2002∕98∕EC, Directive 2004∕23∕EC, Directive 2005∕61∕EC, Directive 2005∕62∕EC, Directive 2006∕86∕EC, Commission Directive (EU) 2015∕565, SWD(2019) 376 final and the external evaluation SANTE∕2017∕B4∕010.
backgroundIn the EU, the ethical requirements for the BTC legal framework focus also on the quality, eligibility, safety, and protection standards. In addition, the SWD(2019) 376 final on the evaluation of the EU BTC legislation released in October 2019 draws attention to the challenges of technology, consent and donation, testing procedures and management of the BTC services. CONTENT: The paper highlights the EU BTC setting standards by examining the particular provisions for the: hemovigilance, eligibility of donors, blood and blood components (BBC), consent, decisions required at the Member States (MS) level, healthcare standards, measures for the blood establishments (BE) and tissue establishments (TE) and particular issues concerning the donation of tissues and/or cells (T&C).
conclusionsNevertheless, the intended function of the analysis is to focus on the EU BTC legislation and to enable research responsive to the latest initiatives launched by the European Blood Alliance (EBA) and Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCB) in the field of the definitions and ethical processes.
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.