ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2007
Timing of blood extraction in epidemiologic and proteomic studies: results and proposals from the PANKRAS II Study.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing of Toenail Collection and Concentrations of Metals in Pancreatic Cancer. Evidence Against Disease Progression Bias.Exposure and health · 2022Article
- Caution: work in progress : While the methodological "revolution" deserves in-depth study, clinical researchers and senior epidemiologists should not be disenfranchised.European journal of epidemiology · 2016Article
- Article
- STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology--Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE Statement.PLoS medicine · 2011Article
- STrengthening the reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology-Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement.European journal of epidemiology · 2011Article
- Clinical validity of detecting K-ras mutations for the diagnosis of exocrine pancreatic cancer: a prospective study in a clinically-relevant spectrum of patients.European journal of epidemiology · 2011Article
- Article
- The Rotterdam Study: 2010 objectives and design update.European journal of epidemiology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are no consensus guidelines or standards for epidemiologic and '-omics' studies using blood biomarkers on how to report the timing of extraction of blood samples. However, disease-induced changes in blood concentrations of exogenous and endogenous compounds may bias studies. The aim of the present report is to describe the timing of blood collection with respect to a variety of relevant clinical events in the PANKRAS II Study, and to suggest ways to display graphically the quantitative information. Subjects were 167 incident cases of exocrine pancreatic cancer prospectively recruited in five teaching hospitals in eastern Spain. Over 80% of patients had blood extracted during the first 6 months since onset of cancer symptoms, and 82% within the first month of admission to a study hospital. Over 80% of cases had blood drawn after an ultrasound, a CT scan or an ERCP, 25% after a laparotomy, and 37% after treatment onset. All three intervals from blood extraction to diagnosis, to treatment onset and to interview had a median of 0 days, and 88% of cases had blood drawn within 2 weeks of diagnosis. Over 72% of cases had concentrations of total lipids in the medium, normal range. Results suggest ways to report intervals involving blood biomarkers and may contribute to develop consensus guidelines and standards on the collection of blood samples in epidemiologic and '-omics' research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.