Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21959867›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2011

The NIDDK Central Repository at 8 years--ambition, revision, use and impact.

Charles F Turner, Huaqin Pan, Gregg W Silk, Mary-Anne Ardini, Vesselina Bakalov, Stephanie Bryant, Susanna Cantor, Kung-yen Chang, Michael DeLatte, Paul Eggers and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 'What's in the NIDDK CDR?'--public query tools for the NIDDK central data repository.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2013
    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

26 authors.

Charles F TurnerRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Huaqin Pan
Gregg W Silk
Mary-Anne Ardini
Vesselina Bakalov
Stephanie Bryant
Susanna Cantor
Kung-yen Chang
Michael DeLatte
Paul Eggers
Laxminarayana Ganapathi
Sujatha Lakshmikanthan
Joshua Levy
Sheping Li
Joseph Pratt
Norma Pugh
Ying Qin
Rebekah Rasooly
Helen Ray
Jean E Richardson
Amanda Flynn Riley
Susan M Rogers
Charlotte Scheper
Sylvia Tan
Stacie White
Philip C Cooley

Funding

NLM NIH HHS HHSN267200800016C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) Central Repository makes data and biospecimens from NIDDK-funded research available to the broader scientific community. It thereby facilitates: the testing of new hypotheses without new data or biospecimen collection; pooling data across several studies to increase statistical power; and informative genetic analyses using the Repository's well-curated phenotypic data. This article describes the initial database plan for the Repository and its revision using a simpler model. Among the lessons learned were the trade-offs between the complexity of a database design and the costs in time and money of implementation; the importance of integrating consent documents into the basic design; the crucial need for linkage files that associate biospecimen IDs with the masked subject IDs used in deposited data sets; and the importance of standardized procedures to test the integrity data sets prior to distribution. The Repository is currently tracking 111 ongoing NIDDK-funded studies many of which include genotype data, and it houses over 5 million biospecimens of more than 25 types including serum, plasma, stool, urine, DNA, red blood cells, buffy coat and tissue. Repository resources have supported a range of biochemical, clinical, statistical and genetic research (188 external requests for clinical data and 31 for biospecimens have been approved or are pending). Genetic research has included GWAS, validation studies, development of methods to improve statistical power of GWAS and testing of new statistical methods for genetic research. We anticipate that the future impact of the Repository's resources on biomedical research will be enhanced by (i) cross-listing of Repository biospecimens in additional searchable databases and biobank catalogs; (ii) ongoing deployment of new applications for querying the contents of the Repository; and (iii) increased harmonization of procedures, data collection strategies, questionnaires etc. across both research studies and within the vocabularies used by different repositories.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksDatabase Management SystemsAnimalsDatabases, FactualDiabetes MellitusDigestive System DiseasesHumansKidney DiseasesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U.S.)United States

Identifiers

PMID21959867
PMCPMC3243603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.