↓ Skip to main content

IRB practices and policies regarding the secondary research use of biospecimens

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

2 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


19 Dimensions

Readers on

43 Mendeley
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.
IRB practices and policies regarding the secondary research use of biospecimens
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0020-1
Pubmed ID

Aaron J Goldenberg, Karen J Maschke, Steven Joffe, Jeffrey R Botkin, Erin Rothwell, Thomas H Murray, Rebecca Anderson, Nicole Deming, Beth F Rosenthal, Suzanne M Rivera


As sharing and secondary research use of biospecimens increases, IRBs and researchers face the challenge of protecting and respecting donors without comprehensive regulations addressing the human subject protection issues posed by biobanking. Variation in IRB biobanking policies about these issues has not been well documented. This paper reports on data from a survey of IRB Administrative Directors from 60 institutions affiliated with the Clinical and Translation Science Awards (CTSAs) about their policies and practices regarding secondary use and sharing of biospecimens. Specifically, IRB ADs were asked about consent for future use of biospecimens, assignment of risk for studies using biobanked specimens, and sharing of biospecimens/data. Our data indicate that IRBs take varying approaches to protocol review, risk assessment, and data sharing, especially when specimens are not anonymized. Unclear or divergent policies regarding biospecimen research among IRBs may constitute a barrier to advancing genetic studies and to inter-institutional collaboration, given different institutional requirements for human subjects protections.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Master 7 16%
Professor 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Social Sciences 6 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 December 2021.
All research outputs
of 21,321,610 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
of 926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 245,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 245,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them