Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39334200›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

Biobanking, digital health and privacy: the choices of 1410 volunteers and neurological patients regarding limitations on use of data and biological samples, return of results and sharing.

Emilia Giannella, Josep Miquel Bauça, Simona Gabriella Di Santo, Stefano Brunelli, Elisabetta Costa, Sergio Di Fonzo, Francesca Romana Fusco, Antonio Perre, Valerio Pisani, Giorgia Presicce and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Lower baseline serum neuronal-specific enolase levels predict better rate of recovery of functional walking ability in post-acute stroke patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Brain donation rules in Italy and worldwide: overview of a cutting-edge topic for human brain research.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

17 authors.

Emilia GiannellaClinical Neurochemistry Unit and Biobank, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, via Ardeatina 354, Rome, Italy.
Josep Miquel BauçaHospital Universitari Son Espases, Palma, Spain.
Simona Gabriella Di SantoInstitute of Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Segrate, Italy.
Stefano BrunelliRehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Elisabetta CostaRehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Sergio Di FonzoRehabilitation Unit 1 and Spinal Center, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Francesca Romana FuscoRehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Antonio PerreRehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Valerio PisaniRehabilitation Unit 1 and Spinal Center, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Giorgia PresicceRehabilitation and Multiple Sclerosis Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Francesca SpaneddaPost-Coma Unit and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy.
Giorgio ScivolettoRehabilitation Unit 1 and Spinal Center, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Rita FormisanoRehabilitation and Multiple Sclerosis Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Maria Grazia GrassoPost-Coma Unit and Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy.
Stefano PaolucciRehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Domenico De AngelisRehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
Giulia SancesarioClinical Neurochemistry Unit and Biobank, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, via Ardeatina 354, Rome, Italy. g.sancesario@hsantalucia.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing diffusion of artificial intelligence, data science and digital health has highlighted the role of collection of data and biological samples, thus raising legal and ethical concerns regarding its use and dissemination. Further, the expansion of biobanking, from the basic collection of frozen specimens to the virtual biobanks of specimens and associated data that exist today, has given a revolutionary potential on healthcare systems, particularly in the field of neurological diseases, due to the inaccessibility of central nervous system and the need of non-invasive investigation approaches. Informed Consent (IC) is considered mandatory in all research studies and specimen collections, and must specifically take into account the ethical respect to the individuals to whom the used biological material and data belong.

methodsWe evaluated the attitudes of patients with neurological diseases (NP) and healthy volunteers (HV) towards the donation of biological samples to a biobank for future research studies on neurological diseases, and limitations on the use of data, related to the requirements set by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The study involved a total of 1454 subjects, including 502 HVs and 952 NPs, recruited at Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Rome, from 2020 to 2024.

resultsWe found that (i) almost all subjects agreed with the participation in biobanking (ii) and authorization to genetic studies (HV = 99.1%; NP = 98.3%); Regarding the return of results, (iii) we found a statistically significant difference between NP and HV, the latter preferring not to be informed of potential results (HV = 43%; NP = 11.3%; p < 0.0001); (iv) a small number limited the sharing inside European Union (EU) (HV = 4.6%; NP = 6.6%), whereas patients were more likely to refuse transfer outside EU (HV = 7.4%; NP = 10.7% p = 0.05); (v) nearly all patients agreed with the use of additional health data from EMR for research purposes (98.9%).

conclusionsConsent for the donation of material for research purposes is crucial for biobanking and biomedical research studies that use biological material of human origin. Here, we have shown that choices regarding participation in a neurological biobank can be different between HVs and NPs, even if the benefit for research and scientific progress is recognized. NP have a strong interest in being informed of possible results but limit sharing of samples, highlighting a perception of greater individual or relative benefit, while HV prefer a wide dissemination and sharing of data but not to have the return of the results, favoring a possible benefit for society and knowledge. The results underline the need to carefully manage biological material and data collected in biobanks, in compliance with the GDPR and the specific requests of donors.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentNervous System DiseasesAdultAgedBiomedical ResearchConfidentialityDigital HealthFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrivacyBiobankingBioethicsBiomarkersData ScienceData TreatmentDigital HealthDonorsGDPRNeurological diseasesPrivacy

Identifiers

PMID39334200
PMCPMC11437646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.