ArticleThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2014
Protein Biomarker Research in UK Hospital Clinical Biochemistry Laboratories: A Survey of Current Practice and Views.
Article in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- What makes a "successful" or "unsuccessful" discharge letter? Hospital clinician and General Practitioner assessments of the quality of discharge letters.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing drive for more and better disease biomarkers to underpin the stratified or personalised medicine agenda, clinical biochemistry laboratories should be ideally placed to play a major role in their translation into clinical practice. However, little is known about the current extent of biomarker-related research activity in UK National Health Service clinical biochemistry departments.
methodsIn December 2010, an online questionnaire was sent to active UK members of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry (ACB) to determine the extent of their current research activity and involvement in protein biomarker discovery and translation, including an assessment of the awareness of proteomics.
resultsA total of 198 eligible responses (19% response rate) was received from across the UK. Of a further 50 eligible people who responded to a follow-up for initial non-responders, most cited insufficient knowledge about the topic as the reason for non-response (24% total response rate). The results illustrate the highly skilled nature of the workforce with many having experience in a research environment (75%) with postgraduate qualifications. However, more than half spend <10% of their time undertaking research in their current role, and many (61%) would like to be more research active. Encouragingly, approximately a third were involved in biomarker discovery activities, even though for <10% of their time, with slightly more reporting involvement in biomarker translation.
conclusionsAlthough there are people with the necessary skills and desire to be involved in biomarker research in clinical biochemistry departments, their involvement is small, predominantly due to issues with capacity and resources. It is likely that the majority of biomarker programmes will therefore continue to be carried out by a small number of academic groups, hopefully with collaborative input from hospital laboratories.
Identifiers
25210209PMC4159780W177000532What 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.