Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27399803›Full record

ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2016

An International Survey of Brain Banking Operation and Characterization Practices.

Beatrix Palmer-Aronsten, Donna Sheedy, Toni McCrossin, Jillian Kril

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Brain banking in the United States and Europe: Importance, challenges, and future trends.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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.

Beatrix Palmer-Aronsten1 NSW Brain Tissue Resource Centre, Charles Perkins Centre, and Discipline of Pathology, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney , Sydney, Australia .
Donna Sheedy1 NSW Brain Tissue Resource Centre, Charles Perkins Centre, and Discipline of Pathology, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney , Sydney, Australia .
Toni McCrossin1 NSW Brain Tissue Resource Centre, Charles Perkins Centre, and Discipline of Pathology, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney , Sydney, Australia .
Jillian Kril1 NSW Brain Tissue Resource Centre, Charles Perkins Centre, and Discipline of Pathology, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney , Sydney, Australia .

Funding

Brain Tissue Resource Centre for Alcohol ResearchR28AA012725 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY · PI Greg Trevor Sutherland · 2012 to 2026
$7.0M
NIAAA NIH HHS R28 AA012725
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain banks continue to make a major contribution to the study of neurological and psychiatric disorders. The current complexity and scope of research heighten the need for well-characterized cases and the demand for larger cohorts and necessitate strategies, such as the establishment of bank networks based in regional areas. While individual brain banks have developed protocols that meet researchers' needs within the confines of resources and funding, to further promote collaboration, standardization and scientific validity and understanding of the current protocols of participating banks are required. A survey was sent to brain banks, identified by an Internet search, to investigate operational protocols, case characterization, cohort management, data collection, standardization, and degree of collaboration between banks. The majority of the 24 banks that returned the survey have been established for more than 20 years, and most are affiliated with a regional network. While prospective donor programs were the primary source of donation, the data collected on donors varied. Longitudinal information assists case characterization and enhances the analysis capabilities of research. However, acquiring this information depended on the availability of qualified staff. Respondents indicated a high level of importance for standardization, but only 8 of 24 considered this occurred between banks. Standard diagnostic criteria were not achieved in the classification of controls, and some banks relied on the researcher to indicate the criteria for classification of controls. Although the capacity to collaborate with other banks was indicated by 16 of 24 banks, this occurred infrequently. Engagement of all brain banks to participate toward a consensus of diagnostic tools, especially for controls, will strengthen collaboration.

Indexed as

AustralasiaBiomedical ResearchBrainCanadaHumansInternational CooperationProspective StudiesSpecimen HandlingSurveys and QuestionnairesTissue BanksUnited KingdomUnited Statesbrain bankingclassificationsurvey

Identifiers

PMID27399803
PMCPMC5180078

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.