ArticleThe oncologist2024
Perception of Polish patients with cancer of the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research.
Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management discussion of laws and regulations on human genetic resources in China: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Biosample Donation Intentions of Patients with Infectious Disease Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Qualitative Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough biobanks have become fundamental to many research centers and contribute to medical development, they generate many ethical and legal issues that may discourage patients from donating. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo understand patients' perception of ethical and legal issues related to biobanks we conducted a survey among 548 Polish patients with cancer.
resultsWhile 93.1% of patients with cancer declared themselves willing to donate biospecimens left over after a medical procedure to a biobank, most opted for one-time consent or study-specific consent, blanket consent being less frequently preferred. Many patients believed that future use of previously collected tissues require second contact. Most patients preferred pseudonymization over anonymization of the data, and supported donors' right to withdraw informed consent at any given moment. Finally, while personal health information was the most expected form of compensation for donation, most patients suggested that all parties, including the biobank concerned, the sponsors of the research, and the donors, should own the rights to cancer tissues donated and profit from the biobank research. Patients' opinions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research were associated with age, sex, religiosity, education level, and place of residence.
conclusionsSince biobanks generate ethical and legal issues related to informed consent, data protection and storage, as well as the sharing of biosamples, tissue ownership, and profit sharing, that may discourage patients from donation, when asking a patient for a donation, healthcare professionals should communicate in a donor-centered manner and address patients' ethical and moral concerns related to donation and offer resources to help manage these concerns.
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.