ethical considerations related to return of results from genomic medicine projects: the emerge network (phase iii) experience
Clicks: 275
ID: 143471
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
275 views
37 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #10 of 14 articles by views in food packaging and shelf life
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
We examined the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process at 9 academic institutions in the electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, for proposed electronic health record-based genomic medicine studies, to identify common questions and concerns. Sequencing of 109 disease related genes and genotyping of 14 actionable variants is being performed in ~28,100 participants from the 9 sites. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in actionable genes are being returned to study participants. We examined each site’s research protocols, informed-consent materials, and interactions with IRB staff. Research staff at each site completed questionnaires regarding their IRB interactions. The time to prepare protocols for IRB submission, number of revisions and time to approval ranged from 10–261 days, 0–11, and 11–90 days, respectively. IRB recommendations related to the readability of informed consent materials, specifying the full range of potential risks, providing options for receiving limited results or withdrawal, sharing of information with family members, and establishing the mechanisms to answer participant questions. IRBs reviewing studies that involve the return of results from genomic sequencing have a diverse array of concerns, and anticipating these concerns can help investigators to more effectively engage IRBs.
| Reference Key |
fossey2018journalethical
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Robyn Fossey;David Kochan;Erin Winkler;Joel E. Pacyna;Janet Olson;Stephen Thibodeau;John J. Connolly;Margaret Harr;Meckenzie A. Behr;Cynthia A. Prows;Beth Cobb;Melanie F. Myers;Nancy D. Leslie;Bahram Namjou-Khales;Hila Milo Rasouly;Julia Wynn;Alexander Fedotov;Wendy K. Chung;Ali Gharavi;Janet L. Williams;Lynn Pais;Ingrid Holm;Sharon Aufox;Maureen E. Smith;Aaron Scrol;Kathleen Leppig;Gail P. Jarvik;Georgia L. Wiesner;Rongling Li;Mary Stroud;Jordan W. Smoller;Richard R. Sharp;Iftikhar J. Kullo |
| Journal | food packaging and shelf life |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
10.3390/jpm8010002
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.