ReviewAmerican journal of clinical pathology2012
Comprehensive genomic studies: emerging regulatory, strategic, and quality assurance challenges for biorepositories.
Review in American journal of clinical pathology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of prostate cancer genomic studies in Africa.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- A Blockchain-Based Dynamic Consent Architecture to Support Clinical Genomic Data Sharing (ConsentChain): Proof-of-Concept Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Genetic Research Using Archival Tissue: Ethical, Social, and Legal Considerations in the United Arab Emirates.Asian bioethics review · 2018Article
- A decision tool to guide the ethics review of a challenging breed of emerging genomic projects.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Review
- Validation of biomarkers to predict response to immunotherapy in cancer: Volume I - pre-analytical and analytical validation.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2016Review
- Genetic Testing and Tissue Banking for Personalized Oncology: Analytical and Institutional Factors.Seminars in oncology · 2015Review
- A protocol for the identification and validation of novel genetic causes of kidney disease.BMC nephrology · 2015Article
- Open pipelines for integrated tumor genome profiles reveal differences between pancreatic cancer tumors and cell lines.Cancer medicine · 2015Article
- Comparison of clinical targeted next-generation sequence data from formalin-fixed and fresh-frozen tissue specimens.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As part of the molecular revolution sweeping medicine, comprehensive genomic studies are adding powerful dimensions to medical research. However, their power exposes new regulatory, strategic, and quality assurance challenges for biorepositories. A key issue is that unlike other research techniques commonly applied to banked specimens, nucleic acid sequencing, if sufficiently extensive, yields data that could identify a patient. This evolving paradigm renders the concepts of anonymized and anonymous specimens increasingly outdated. The challenges for biorepositories in this new era include refined consent processes and wording, selection and use of legacy specimens, quality assurance procedures, institutional documentation, data sharing, and interaction with institutional review boards. Given current trends, biorepositories should consider these issues now, even if they are not currently experiencing sample requests for genomic analysis. We summarize our current experiences and best practices at Washington University Medical School, St Louis, MO, our perceptions of emerging trends, and recommendations.
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.