SynthesisJournal of genetic counseling2026
Exploring perspectives of interest-holders on the use of health and genomic data from deceased participants in research: An updated systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of genetic counseling, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of research biobanks and databases often involves prolonged storage of data, meaning that an increasing amount of deceased participants' data is being used in research. Research participants are not always informed of the intent to continue using their data post-mortem, and using such data affects the privacy of decedents and their surviving relatives. It is therefore important to assess the perspectives of interest-holders in this respect, considering the rapid progress of big-data technologies, new privacy regulations in the EU and unprecedented data sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper aimed to update a systematic review by Bak et al., to investigate the views of interest-holders on post-mortem data sharing in research. This systematic review followed the same search strategy and inclusion criteria as the previous review, focusing on new empirical evidence on the views of interest-holders regarding the post-mortem sharing or re-use of genetic or health data of research participants, from studies published in 2019-2025. It is reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRIMSA) statement. Findings of included studies were narratively synthesized. The updated systematic review identified seven studies involving 2151 participants, which were of high quality. The main themes of these studies related to perceived acceptability of post-mortem data sharing, aspects of consent (including broad consent), sharing clinical findings with relatives, and barriers and facilitators to data sharing. The findings illustrate that post-mortem genetic and health-related data use remains a relatively under-explored subject, with evident gaps in legislation and guidance.
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.