Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23937609›Full record

ArticleArchives of pathology & laboratory medicine2014

A call to standardize preanalytic data elements for biospecimens.

James A Robb, Margaret L Gulley, Patrick L Fitzgibbons, Mary F Kennedy, L Mark Cosentino, Kay Washington, Rajesh C Dash, Philip A Branton, Scott D Jewell, Rosanna L Lapham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact of formalin fixation on mismatch repair protein evaluation by immunohistochemistry.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2023
    Article
  2. Artificial intelligence applied to breast pathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Epitope recognition in the human-pig comparison model on fixed and embedded material.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2015
    Article
  8. Biobanking in genomic medicine.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2015
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Next-gen immunohistochemistry.Nature methods · 2014
    Article
  14. Proceedings of the 1st Puerto Rico Biobanking Workshop.Reviews on recent clinical trials · 2014
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

James A RobbFrom the Department of Pathology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Gulley); the Department of Pathology, St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, California (Dr Fitzgibbons); the College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois (Ms Kennedy); the Department of Translational Medicine, Biogen Idec, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Dr Cosentino); the Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee (Dr Washington); the Department of Pathology, Duke Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina (Dr Dash); the Biorepositories and Biospecimens Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland (Dr Branton); the Department of Biospecimen Science, Van Andel Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan (Dr Jewell); and the Department of Pathology, Spartanburg Regional Medical Center, Spartanburg, South Carolina (Dr Lapham).
Margaret L Gulley
Patrick L Fitzgibbons
Mary F Kennedy
L Mark Cosentino
Kay Washington
Rajesh C Dash
Philip A Branton
Scott D Jewell
Rosanna L Lapham

Funding

Tennessee Valley Cooperative Human Tissue NetworkUM1CA183727 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MARY Kay WASHINGTON · 2014 to 2026
$12.6M
NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA183727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextBiospecimens must have appropriate clinical annotation (data) to ensure optimal quality for both patient care and research. Clinical preanalytic variables are the focus of this study.

objectiveTo define the essential preanalytic variables (data fields) that should be attached to every collected biospecimen and to provide a complete list of such variables, along with their relative importance, which can vary, depending on downstream use, institutional needs, and information technology capabilities.

designThe College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Intelligence and Health Information Technology Committee sponsored a Biorepository Working Group to develop a ranked list of the preanalytic variables for annotating biospecimens. Members of the working group were experts in anatomic, clinical, and molecular pathology; biobanking; medical informatics; and accreditation. Several members had experience with federal government programs, such as the National Cancer Institute's Biospecimens and Biorepository Branch and the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Center Program. Potential preanalytic variables were identified and ranked along with available supporting evidence, definitions, and potential negative effects if the variable was not attached to the biospecimen. Additional national and international stakeholders reviewed the draft manuscript.

resultsThe ranked listing of 170 preanalytic variables produced can be used as a guide for site-specific implementation into patient care and/or research biorepository processes. Conclusions.-In our collective experience, it is often difficult to choose which of the many preanalytic variables to attach to any specific set of biospecimens used for patient care and/or research. The provided ranked list should aid in the selection of preanalytic variables for a given biospecimen collection.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesBiological Specimen BanksHumansPathologySocieties, MedicalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23937609
PMCPMC6446924

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.