Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36131283›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Exploring how biobanks communicate the possibility of commercial access and its associated benefits and risks in participant documents.

G Samuel, F Hardcastle, R Broekstra, A Lucassen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

G Samuel *Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics and Centre for Personalised Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK. gabbysamuel@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8111-2730
F Hardcastle *Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics and Centre for Personalised Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
R Broekstra *Clinical Ethics, Law and Society Research group, Faculty of Medicine, and Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre., University of Southampton, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
A LucassenWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics and Centre for Personalised Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7BN, UK.
Centre for Human Genetics · GBUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiobanks and biomedical research data repositories collect their samples and associated data from volunteer participants. Their aims are to facilitate biomedical research and improve health, and they are framed in terms of contributing to the public good. Biobank resources may be accessible to researchers with commercial motivations, for example, researchers in pharmaceutical companies who may utilise the data to develop new clinical therapeutics and pharmaceutical drugs. Studies exploring citizen perceptions of public/private interactions associated with large health data repositories/biobanks indicate that there are sensitivities around public/private and/or non-profit/profit relationships and international sample and data sharing. Less work has explored how biobanks communicate their public/private partnerships to the public or to their potential research participants.

methodsWe explored how a biobank's aims, benefits and risks, and private/public relationships have been framed in public facing recruitment documents (consent forms and participant information sheets).

resultsBiobank documents often communicate their commercial access arrangements but not the detail about what these interactions would entail, and how risks and benefits would be distributed to the public.

conclusionWe argue that this leads to a polarised discourse between public and private entities and/or activities, and fails to attend to the blurred lines between them. This results in a lack of attention to more important issues such as how risks and benefits in general are distributed to the public. We call for a nuanced approach that can contribute to the much-needed dialogue in this space.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsResearch PersonnelRisk AssessmentPharmaceutical PreparationsBiobanking, health research data repositoriesData access consentEthicsPublic private relationshipsRecruitment

Identifiers

PMID36131283
PMCPMC9491663
OpenAlexW4296558830

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.