ArticlePeerJ2016
Samples and data accessibility in research biobanks: an explorative survey.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biorepositories For Global Rare Disease Research: A Narrative Review.Current rheumatology reports · 2025Review
- Review
- Imaging biobanks: operational limits, medical-legal and ethical reflections.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Review
- Appropriate Safeguards and Article 89 of the GDPR: Considerations for Biobank, Databank and Genetic Research.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Sharing, reuse, and storage of biosamples among biomedical researchers in Jordan: Practice and concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- Recommendations for a Dutch Sustainable Biobanking Environment.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2021Article
- Biobanks-A Platform for Scientific and Biomedical Research.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Article
- Legal and ethical framework for global health information and biospecimen exchange - an international perspective.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Enriching Personalized Endometrial Cancer Research with the Harmonization of Biobanking Standards.Cancers · 2019Review
- Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Review
- How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF).Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
- Cancer oriented biobanks: A comprehensive review.Oncology reviews · 2018Article
- The author who wasn't there? Fairness and attribution in publications following access to population biobanks.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.