Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19214110›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic molecular pathology : the American journal of surgical pathology, part B2009

Quality assessment of microarray data in a multicenter study.

Kellie J Archer, Valeria R Mas, Thomas R O'Brien, Ruth Pfeiffer, Nicole L Lum, Robert A Fisher

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostic molecular pathology : the American journal of surgical pathology, part B, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kellie J ArcherVirginia Commonwealth University, 730 East Broad Street, Theater Row, Richmond, VA 23298-0032, USA. kjarcher@vcu.edu
Valeria R Mas
Thomas R O'Brien
Ruth Pfeiffer
Nicole L Lum
Robert A Fisher
Virginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Living donor liver transplant data coordinating centerU01DK062498 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MERION, ROBERT M · 2002 to 2016
$15.3M
Epidemiology of Oncogenic VirusesZIACP005782 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI O'BRIEN, THOMAS R · 2009 to 2025
$6.7M
Living Donor Liver Transplant - Predictive Models for Long-Term Health OutcomesU01DK062467 · NIDDK · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ABECASSIS, MICHAEL M · 2002 to 2014
$4.7M
Living Donor Liver Transplant :Short & Long-Term Impact on Donors and RecipientsU01DK062444 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI FREISE, CHRIS · 2002 to 2014
$3.7M
Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort StudyU01DK062494 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI OLTHOFF, KIM MARIE · 2002 to 2014
$3.3M
Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver TransplantationU01DK062531 · NIDDK · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI COTTERELL, ADRIAN · 2002 to 2014
$2.7M
Genes Related to HCC Progression in LD and DD TransplantR01DK069859 · NIDDK · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI FISHER, ROBERT A · 2006 to 2010
$2.5M
ADLDT: An Opportunity to Expand the National Donor PoolU01DK062496 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI HONG, JOHNNY C · 2002 to 2010
$1.8M
Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation in AdultsU01DK062505 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HAYASHI, PAUL HIDEYO · 2002 to 2010
$1.2M
Intramural NIH HHSNIDDK NIH HHS 1R01 DK 069859NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK069859NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK062444NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK062467NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK062494NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK062496NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK062498NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK062505NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK062531
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Issues implicit in a multicenter microarray study are protocol standardization and monitoring center adherence to established protocols. This study explored the effects of submitting center and sample preservation method on the quality of isolated RNA. In addition, the effects of sample preservation method and laboratory on microarray quality were also examined. Herein we evaluated the contribution of specific technical factors [center, laboratory, and preservation method (frozen/RNAlater)] on quality of isolated RNA, cRNA synthesis products, and reproducibility of gene expression microarray data for independent biologic samples collected in a multicenter microarray study. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences owing to submitting center on isolated RNA quality. Mixed effects analysis of variance was used in assessing the impact of laboratory and preservation method on gene expression values for the 12 samples hybridized at 2 independent laboratories (24 GeneChips). One center was found to be in violation of the tissue handling protocol. No significant effect was noted owing to preservation method, which ensured that our tissue handling protocols are working properly. There was a significant laboratory effect with respect to cRNA yield, though this effect did not impact sample quality. We conclude that use of consistent protocols for sample collection, RNA extraction, cDNA/cRNA synthesis, labeling, hybridization, platform, image acquisition, normalization, and expression summaries can yield consistent expression values. Moreover, evaluation of sample quality at various steps in the data acquisition process is an important component of a multicenter study to ensure all participating centers adhere to established protocols.

Indexed as

Quality Assurance, Health CareHumansMicroarray AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsRNATissue PreservationRNA

Identifiers

PMID19214110
PMCPMC3738008
OpenAlexW1982946990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.