Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26966643›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

Samples and data accessibility in research biobanks: an explorative survey.

Marco Capocasa, Paolo Anagnostou, Flavio D'Abramo, Giulia Matteucci, Valentina Dominici, Giovanni Destro Bisol, Fabrizio Rufo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Biobanks-A Platform for Scientific and Biomedical Research.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

7 authors.

Marco Capocasa *Istituto Italiano di Antropologia, Rome, Italy.
Paolo Anagnostou *Istituto Italiano di Antropologia, Rome, Italy.
Flavio D'Abramo *Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany.
Giulia MatteucciIstituto Italiano di Antropologia, Rome, Italy.
Valentina DominiciIstituto Italiano di Antropologia, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni Destro BisolIstituto Italiano di Antropologia, Rome, Italy.
Fabrizio RufoIstituto Italiano di Antropologia, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biobanks, which contain human biological samples and/or data, provide a crucial contribution to the progress of biomedical research. However, the effective and efficient use of biobank resources depends on their accessibility. In fact, making bio-resources promptly accessible to everybody may increase the benefits for society. Furthermore, optimizing their use and ensuring their quality will promote scientific creativity and, in general, contribute to the progress of bio-medical research. Although this has become a rather common belief, several laboratories are still secretive and continue to withhold samples and data. In this study, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey in order to investigate sample and data accessibility in research biobanks operating all over the world. The survey involved a total of 46 biobanks. Most of them gave permission to access their samples (95.7%) and data (85.4%), but free and unconditioned accessibility seemed not to be common practice. The analysis of the guidelines regarding the accessibility to resources of the biobanks that responded to the survey highlights three issues: (i) the request for applicants to explain what they would like to do with the resources requested; (ii) the role of funding, public or private, in the establishment of fruitful collaborations between biobanks and research labs; (iii) the request of co-authorship in order to give access to their data. These results suggest that economic and academic aspects are involved in determining the extent of sample and data sharing stored in biobanks. As a second step of this study, we investigated the reasons behind the high diversity of requirements to access biobank resources. The analysis of informative answers suggested that the different modalities of resource accessibility seem to be largely influenced by both social context and legislation of the countries where the biobanks operate.

Indexed as

BiorepositoryData sharingHuman subjectsOpen scienceResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID26966643
PMCPMC4782685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.