ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025
Research opportunities in precision oncology: perspectives on biospecimen and genomic data sharing from adults with cancer in Ireland.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient experiences of tissue donation and digital consent support in primary craniospinal tumour research.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough surveys of people living with cancer in other nations have generally found a high degree of willingness to donate to research services such as genomic databases and biobanks, results may vary between countries. Additional questions also remain surrounding issues such as preferred model of consent, reporting of findings and concerns surrounding potential commercial application of health data.
methodsData was gathered from 176 adults living with and beyond cancer in Ireland over a 16-month period, utilising an online survey platform. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the survey cohort, with relationships between variables tested using the Spearman correlation or chi-square analysis.
resultsTwenty-eight percent of respondents had previously donated a biological sample to research, while all those who had not previously donated indicated they would do so if given the opportunity. There was a strong preference for total transparency with personal health data, with the vast majority wanting to know of any risk factors identified in their genome, even if these risks were not medically actionable. Respondents held a high degree of trust in both the clinical and scientific community, with most indicating that this played a major role in influencing their decision to donate. Finally, while most did not have issues with commercial involvement in the donation process, 26% did express some reservations.
conclusionOur results indicate a high degree of receptiveness to biological sample donation amongst people living with cancer in Ireland, suggesting that further efforts to recruit individuals could yield substantial improvements in sample donation rates.
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.