Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16219511›Full record

ReviewFEMS microbiology reviews2005

Bio-banking in microbiology: from sample collection to epidemiology, diagnosis and research.

Paolo De Paoli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in FEMS microbiology reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. How long should we keep clinical isolates involved in bone and joint infections in microbiology laboratories?European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Collection of human bacteria at University of Tartu, Estonia.Microbiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The future of phage therapy in the USA.Trends in molecular medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Are rabid raccoons (Evolutionary applications · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Pathological Findings in Eurasian Otters (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Paolo De PaoliDivision of Microbiology, Immunology and Virology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico, IRCCS, via Pedemontana 12, 33170 Aviano, Italy. pdepaoli@cro.it

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Millions of biological samples, including cells of human, animal or bacterial origin, viruses, serum/plasma or DNA/RNA, are stored every year throughout the world for diagnostics and research. The purpose of this review is to summarize the resources necessary to set up a bio-banking facility, the challenges and pitfalls of sample collection, and the most important techniques for separation and storage of samples. Biological samples can be stored for up to 30 years, but specific protocols are required to reduce the damage induced by preservation techniques. Software dedicated to biological banks facilitate sample registration and identification, the cataloguing of sample properties (type of sample/specimen, associated diseases and/or therapeutic protocols, environmental information, etc.), sample tracking, quality assurance and specimen availability. Bio-bank facilities must adopt good laboratory practices and a stringent quality control system and, when required, comply with ethical issues.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksInfectionsAnimalsBacteriaCell LineCryopreservationFreeze DryingFungiHumansParasitesQuality ControlResearchSpecimen HandlingViruses

Identifiers

PMID16219511
PMCPMC7110355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.