ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2013
Biobanking for research in surgery: are surgeons in charge for advancing translational research or mere assistants in biomaterial and data preservation?
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbiome Analysis from Paired Mucosal and Fecal Samples of a Colorectal Cancer Biobank.Cancers · 2020Article
- Brain tumor biobanking in the precision medicine era: building a high-quality resource for translational research in neuro-oncology.Neuro-oncology practice · 2017Review
- Pre-Analytical Determination of the Effect of Extended Warm or Cold Ischaemia on RNA Stability in the Human Ileum Mucosa.PloS one · 2015Article
- The procurement, storage, and quality assurance of frozen blood and tissue biospecimens in pathology, biorepository, and biobank settings.Clinical biochemistry · 2014Review
- High stability of microRNAs in tissue samples of compromised quality.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2013Article
- Passion and commensurability: both are needed for a concurrence of surgery and research.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality biospecimens of human origin with annotated clinical and procedural data are an important tool for biomedical research, not only to map physiology, pathophysiology and aetiology but also to go beyond in translational research. This has opened a new special field of research known as 'biobanking', which focuses on how to collect, store and provide these specimens and data, and which is substantially supported by national and European funding. PURPOSE: An overview on biobanking is given, with a closer look on a clinical setting, concerning a necessary distinction from clinical trials and studies as well as a comparison of prospective sample collection with secondary use of archived samples from diagnostics. Based on a summary of possible use and scientific impact of human tissue in research, it is shown how surgical expertise boosts the scientific value of specimens and data. Finally, an assessment of legal and ethical issues especially from a surgical perspective is given, followed by a model of interdisciplinary biobanking within a joint 'centre' that as synergistic structure merges essential input from surgery as well as laboratory medicine, pathology and biometry.
conclusionWithin the domain of biobanking, surgeons have to develop a better awareness of their role within translational research, not only on the level of medical faculties but also as nationally and internationally funded initiatives. Therefore, the authors suggest a platform for biobanking within the German association of surgeons in analogy to the existing special interest group for clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23430290What 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.