ArticleComputer methods and programs in biomedicine2016
Resolving complex research data management issues in biomedical laboratories: Qualitative study of an industry-academia collaboration.
Article in Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 2016. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing laboratory biosafety management: a comprehensive strategy from theory to practice.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper describes a distributed collaborative effort between industry and academia to systematize data management in an academic biomedical laboratory. Heterogeneous and voluminous nature of research data created in biomedical laboratories make information management difficult and research unproductive. One such collaborative effort was evaluated over a period of four years using data collection methods including ethnographic observations, semi-structured interviews, web-based surveys, progress reports, conference call summaries, and face-to-face group discussions. Data were analyzed using qualitative methods of data analysis to (1) characterize specific problems faced by biomedical researchers with traditional information management practices, (2) identify intervention areas to introduce a new research information management system called Labmatrix, and finally to (3) evaluate and delineate important general collaboration (intervention) characteristics that can optimize outcomes of an implementation process in biomedical laboratories. Results emphasize the importance of end user perseverance, human-centric interoperability evaluation, and demonstration of return on investment of effort and time of laboratory members and industry personnel for success of implementation process. In addition, there is an intrinsic learning component associated with the implementation process of an information management system. Technology transfer experience in a complex environment such as the biomedical laboratory can be eased with use of information systems that support human and cognitive interoperability. Such informatics features can also contribute to successful collaboration and hopefully to scientific productivity.
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.