The DOI matches its Crossref record.
International requirements for consent in biobank research: qualitative review of research guidelines
Abstract
Several stakeholders in the field of biobank research are currently developing and evaluating innovative consent procedures, and in doing so refer to national and international guidelines that regulate biomedical research. The objectives of this study were to present (1) a synthesis of all consent issues mentioned or required in guidelines that are of potential relevance to biobank research and (2) a detailed overview of similarities and differences between these guidelines. This analysis considered a purposive sample of the nine most internationally recognised research guidelines plus a national checklist for developing consent forms. The synthesis of all included research guidelines found 41 issues of potential relevance to consent procedures in biobank research. The guidelines differ substantially with respect to (1) how comprehensively they address these consent issues, (2) their definition and explanation of the issues and (3) how directly or indirectly the issues are mentioned. The set of 41 consent issues presented in this paper should be further developed in a continuous process. Our findings on the differences among major research guidelines also raise the issue of a more systematic development and revision process for these guidelines. The presented set of content issues potentially relevant to consent in biobank research can inform the balanced development or evaluation of consent forms, as well as the development and revision of corresponding research guidelines.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Regulations and guidelines concerning informed consent are not necessarily specific to biospecimen research, nor are they harmonized.
“Furthermore, regulations and guidelines concerning informed consent are not necessarily specific to biospecimen research, nor are they harmonized (40, 59).”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [59]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Capron AM . Legal and regulatory standards of informed consent in research. In: Emanuel EJ , Grady C , Crouch RA , Lie RK , Miller FG , Wendler D, eds . Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008:613–32. · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pec.2007.12.003 · DOI
- 10.1038/embor.2008.41 · DOI
- 10.1038/ejhg.2012.297 · DOI
- 10.1183/09031936.00165006 · DOI
- Beier K , Lenk C . A unified European approach on tissue research and biobanking? A comparison. In: Lenk C , Sándor J , Gordijn B , eds. Biobanks and tissue research—the public, the patient and the regulation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011:143–64. · DOI
- 10.1038/sj.embor.7400740 · DOI
- Hirschberg, 2013, Practice variation across consent templates for biobank research. A survey of German biobanks, Front Genet, 4, 240, 10.3389/fgene.2013.00240 · DOI
- Council of Europe. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine Strasbourg Council of Europe. 1997. · DOI
- European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2001/20/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities. Luxembourg 2001.
- Emanuel EJ , Grady C , Crouch RA , Lie RK , Miller FG , Wendler D . Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. · DOI
- Saldaña J . The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013.
- 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.116335 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001498 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0013302 · DOI
- Flory JH , Wendler D , EJ E . Empirical issues in informed consent for research. In: Emanuel EJ , Grady C , Crouch RA , Lie RK , Miller FG , Wendler D, eds . Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008:645–60. · DOI
- 10.1191/1740774505cn066oa · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJMsb0902598 · DOI
- Appelbaum PS , Lidz CW . The therapeutic misconception. In: Emanuel EJ , Grady C , Crouch RA , Lie RK , Miller FG , Wendler D , eds. Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008:633–44. · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040324 · DOI
- 10.1586/erm.12.116 · DOI
- 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.262 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.2010.039255 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146
“Furthermore, regulations and guidelines concerning informed consent are not necessarily specific to biospecimen research, nor are they harmonized (40, 59).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Hirschberg, I., Kahrass, H., & Strech, D.
- Affiliations
- Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Strech, Daniel
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Genetics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-10-28
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 773-781
- ISSN
- 0022-2593 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-6244
- OpenAlex
- W2059310263
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 3.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Genetics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- informed consent, biobank research, research guidelines, informed consent forms, research ethics regulation, guideline comparison
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Guidelines as Topic, Biological Specimen Banks, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review