ArticleCroatian medical journal2012
Governing biological material at the intersection of care and research: the use of dried blood spots for biobanking.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic newborn screening: data retention for research and clinical reuse.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Navigating ethical, legal and social implications in genomic newborn screening.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Article
- Parental perspectives on retention and secondary use of neonatal dried bloodspots: a Dutch mixed methods study.BMC pediatrics · 2019Article
- Newborn dried blood spot samples in Denmark: the hidden figures of secondary use and research participation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Editors introduction: biobanks as sites of bio-objectification.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018Article
- Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives.Life sciences, society and policy · 2015Review
- Universal newborn screening for congenital CMV infection: what is the evidence of potential benefit?Reviews in medical virology · 2014Review
- A bio-objects approach to biosecurity: the "mutant flu" controversy as a bio-objectification process.Croatian medical journal · 2013Article
- Future of biobanks - bigger, longer, and more dimensional.Croatian medical journal · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A series of governance issues currently surrounds the multiple uses and multiple users of dried blood spots (DBS) for research purposes. Internationally there is a discussion on storing DBS resulting from newborn screening for public health and using them as the basis for large biobank-like collections to facilitate biomedical research. If such a transformation were to be formalized, then DBS would sit at the intersection of care (ie, public health) and research, with the mechanisms through which such a collection could be managed not totally self-evident. What is more, a DBS collection raises questions about the fuzzy boundaries between privacy and anonymity; how to control or define quality control uses of DBS; medical vs nonmedical uses; as well as benefit sharing and stakeholder involvement. Our goal here is to explore some of the key questions relating to DBS governance by way of the bio-objects and bio-objectification concepts. By embracing - rather than resisting to - the blurring of boundaries and problems in categorization that have come to characterize bio-objects and bio-objectification processes recently described in this journal, we attempt to highlight some issues that might not be currently considered, and to point to some possible directions to go (or avoid). Building from our knowledge of the current DBS situation in the Netherlands, we outline questions concerning the uses, management, collection, and storage of DBS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.