ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2017
Biospecimen User Fees: Global Feedback on a Calculator Tool.
Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Development of the Biobank Collections Valuator as an Automated Tool to Determine the Noneconomic Value of Sample Collections.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2026Article
- Knowledge, perceptions and attitude of Egyptian physicians towards biobanking issues.PloS one · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The notion of attributing user fees to researchers for biospecimens provided by biobanks has been discussed frequently in the literature. However, the considerations around how to attribute the cost for these biospecimens and data have, until recently, not been well described. Common across most biobank disciplines are similar factors that influence user fees such as capital and operating costs, internal and external demand, and market competition. A biospecimen user fee calculator tool developed by CTRNet, a tumor biobank network, was published in 2014 and is accessible online at www.biobanking.org . The next year a survey was launched that tested the applicability of this user fee tool among a global health research biobank user base, including both cancer and noncancer biobanking. Participants were first asked to estimate user fee pricing for three hypothetical user scenarios based on their biobanking experience (estimated pricing) and then to calculate fees for the same scenarios using the calculator tool (calculated pricing). Results demonstrated variation in estimated pricing that was reduced by calculated pricing. These results are similar to those found in a similar previous study restricted to a group of Canadian tumor biobanks. We conclude that the use of a biospecimen user fee calculator contributes to reduced variation of user fees and for biobank groups (e.g., biobank networks), could become an important part of a harmonization strategy.
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.