Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 33, Number 2, Février 2017
Page(s) 188 - 192
Section Forum
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20173302015
Published online 27 February 2017
  1. Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N Engl J Med 2010 ; 363 : 301–304. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S, Venter JC. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 2009 ; 461 : 724–726. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hervé C, Jean MS. Les nouveaux paradigmes de la médecine personnalisée ou médecine de précision : enjeux juridiques, médicaux et éthiques. Paris : Dalloz, 2014 : 282 p. [Google Scholar]
  4. Shrager J, Tenenbaum JM. Rapid learning for precision oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014 ; 11 : 109–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hervé C, Stanton Jean M. Les systèmes informatisés complexes en santé; banque de données, télémédecine : normes et enjeux éthiques. Paris : Dalloz, 2013 : 294 p. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, et al. Dynamic consent : a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 2015 ; 23 : 141–146. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bellivier F, Noiville C. Chapitre I : Consentement. In: Les biobanques. Collection Que sais-je. Paris : PUF, 2009 : 59–72. [Google Scholar]
  8. Deplanque D, Birraux G, Bertoye PH, Postaire E. Collections d’échantillons biologiques humains à visée scientifique. Pourquoi et comment clarifier la réglementation actuelle ? Therapie 2009 ; 64 : 215–224. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cambon-Thomsen A. The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nat Rev Genet 2004 ; 5 : 866–873. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cambon-Thomsen A. Assessing the impact of biobanks. Nat genet 2003 ; 34 : 25–26. [Google Scholar]
  11. Weiner N. The human use of Human Beings. Cybernetics and society. Hougthon Mifflin, 1950 : 200 p. [Google Scholar]
  12. Stoekle HC, Mamzer-Bruneel MF, Vogt G, Herve C. 23andMe : a new two-sided data-banking market model. BMC Medical Ethics 2016 ; 17 : 19. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. OCDE. Literacy in the information age : final report of the international survey on adult literacy. Paris : OCDE, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 2003 ; 348 : 721–726. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol 2008 ; 9 : 485–493. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm436811.pdf [Google Scholar]
  17. Karlson EW, Boutin NT, Hoffnagle AG, Allen NL. Building the partners healthcare biobank at partners personalized medicine : informed consent, return of research results, recruitment lessons and operational considerations. J Pers Med 2016 ; 6 : 2. [Google Scholar]
  18. Williams H, Spencer K, Sanders C, et al. Dynamic consent : a possible solution to improve patient confidence and trust in how electronic patient records are used in medical research. JMIR Medical Informatics 2015 ; 3 : e3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kripalani S, Bengtzen R, Henderson LE, Jacobson TA. Clinical research in low-literacy populations : using teach-back to assess comprehension of informed consent and privacy information. Irb 2008 ; 30 : 13–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Tamariz L, Palacio A, Robert M, Marcus EN. Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy : a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2013 ; 28 : 121–126. [Google Scholar]
  21. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT0000 06072665&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006686057&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid [Google Scholar]
  22. Jordan B. 23andMe ou comment (très bien) valoriser ses clients. Med Sci (Paris) 2015 ; 31 : 447–449. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.