SynthesisBMC medical ethics2025
Opportunities for a national genomic data governance framework in Australia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs with other countries, Australia is seeking to make efficient use of genomic data for use in research, clinical medicine and population health. However, to enable cross jurisdictional consistency in the management of and access to data, it will first need to establish a national framework for governing genomic data. To this end, ethical, legal and social issues are often discussed. However, the literature offers little evidence-based support for such a framework.
methodsTo address this literature gap, we systematically reviewed two databases (Scopus and PubMed) for research articles that discussed issues and opportunities for enacting genomic data governance frameworks in the domains of research, genomic medicine and public (population) health in the Australian context.
resultsThirty-one relevant articles were included and were analysed using inductive content analysis. Our findings identified that opportunities for implementing a national genomic data governance framework concerned defining roles for patients in data governance, data management processes and increasing the public acceptance of genomic data use in healthcare and research. Additionally, they highlight differences in the opportunities and priorities for clinical and research genomics that hinder further advancement of data governance.
conclusionsOur synthesis of the current literature on genomic data governance suggests that the current focus on individual consent as the primary mechanism for protecting data subjects and different priorities in clinical and research governance need to be addressed. Given the significance of the role of consent procedures and differences in clinical and research data in generating a data governance framework, our findings hence reveal a critical gap in the research literature. Advancing a national genomic data governance framework will require greater consensus and clarity regarding the application of ethical principles across jurisdictions and institutions.
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.