Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24713663›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2015

Toward a common language for biobanking.

Martin N Fransson, Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag, Mathias Brochhausen, Jan-Eric Litton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Aspects of Modern Biobank Activity - Comprehensive Review.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2018
    Review
  8. Quantitative mass spectrometry of unconventional human biological matrices.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. OBIB-a novel ontology for biobanking.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

4 authors.

Martin N Fransson1] Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden [2] Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emmanuelle Rial-SebbagINSERM/Université de Toulouse-Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse III, UMR 1027, Toulouse, France.
Mathias BrochhausenDivision of Biomedical Informatics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Jan-Eric LittonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To encourage the process of harmonization, the biobank community should support and use a common terminology. Relevant terms may be found in general thesauri for medicine, legal instruments or specific glossaries for biobanking. A comparison of the use of these sources has so far not been conducted and would be a useful instrument to further promote harmonization and data sharing. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the preference of definitions important for sharing biological samples and data. Definitions for 10 terms -[human] biobank, sample/specimen, sample collection, study, aliquot, coded, identifying information, anonymised, personal data and informed consent-were collected from several sources. A web-based questionnaire was sent to 560 European individuals working with biobanks asking to select their preferred definition for the terms. A total of 123 people participated in the survey, giving a response rate of 23%. The result was evaluated from four aspects: scope of definitions, potential regional differences, differences in semantics and definitions in the context of ontologies, guided by comments from responders. Indicative from the survey is the risk of focusing only on the research aspect of biobanking in definitions. Hence, it is recommended that important terms should be formulated in such a way that all areas of biobanking are covered to improve the bridges between research and clinical application. Since several of the terms investigated here within can also be found in a legal context, which may differ between countries, establishing what is a proper definition on how it adheres to law is also crucial.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological Specimen BanksEuropeHumansInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentSpecimen HandlingSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24713663
PMCPMC4266732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.