ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Researchers' perspectives on the use of material transfer agreements in biobanking research; a case of Uganda.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increase in sharing of human biological materials and associated data in collaborative research underpins the need for robust regulatory frameworks. This study explored researchers' perspectives on the use of material transfer agreements in biobanking research.
methodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted among researchers at two research institutions in Uganda. Fourteen researchers were purposively selected to participate in key informant interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. NVivo 12 software was used to organize the data.
resultsFour themes were generated from the data: the importance of material transfer agreements, facilitators of successful development and execution of material transfer agreements, negotiating power dynamics between institutions in drafting of material transfer agreements, and barriers and challenges to the drafting and execution of material transfer agreements. Material transfer agreements were considered legal documents that describe the obligations of each party during the execution of the study. Researchers felt that robust ethical and legal frameworks, having multi-disciplinary teams and transparency were key to the successful development and execution of material transfer agreements. Researchers mentioned power dynamics, limited understanding and experiences with material transfer agreement processes, protracted bureaucratic approval processes, and differences in policies and laws across different jurisdictions as challenges to the drafting and execution of material transfer agreements.
conclusionThe material transfer agreement is key to ensuring fairness in collaborative research, and the processes to ensure fairness in the drafting and execution of the material transfer agreement require empowerment of partners in resource-limited settings through effective regulatory frameworks and legal support to negotiate better. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.