↓ Skip to main content

Improving the informed consent process in international collaborative rare disease research: effective consent for effective research

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Human Genetics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
29 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Improving the informed consent process in international collaborative rare disease research: effective consent for effective research
Published in
European Journal of Human Genetics, February 2016
DOI 10.1038/ejhg.2016.2
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The increased international sharing of data in research consortia and the introduction of new technologies for sequencing challenge the informed consent (IC) process, adding complexities that require coordination between research centres worldwide. Rare disease consortia present special challenges since available data and samples may be very limited. Thus, it is especially relevant to ensure the best use of available resources but at the same time protect patients' right to integrity. To achieve this aim, there is an ethical duty to plan in advance the best possible consent procedure in order to address possible ethical and legal hurdles that could hamper research in the future. Therefore, it is especially important to identify key core elements (CEs) to be addressed in the IC documents for international collaborative research in two different situations: (1) new research collections (biobanks and registries) for which information documents can be created according to current guidelines and (2) established collections obtained without IC or with a previous consent that does not cover all CEs. We propose here a strategy to deal with consent in these situations. The principles have been applied and are in current practice within the RD-Connect consortia - a global research infrastructure funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework program but forward looking in terms of issues addressed. However, the principles established, the lessons learned and the implications for future research are of direct relevance to all internationally collaborative rare-disease projects.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 10 February 2016; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2016.2.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 20%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Computer Science 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,606,944
of 29,572,228 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Human Genetics
#214
of 4,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,482
of 424,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Human Genetics
#3
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,572,228 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.