Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27576065›Full record

ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2017

Biospecimen User Fees: Global Feedback on a Calculator Tool.

Lise A M Matzke, Sindy Babinszky, Alex Slotty, Anna Meredith, Tania Castillo-Pelayo, Marianne K Henderson, Daniel Simeon-Dubach, Brent Schacter, Peter H Watson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Lise A M Matzke1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Office of Biobank Education and Research (OBER), University of British Columbia , Vancouver, Canada .
Sindy Babinszky2 Tumour Tissue Repository (TTR), BC Cancer Agency , Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, Canada .
Alex Slotty1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Office of Biobank Education and Research (OBER), University of British Columbia , Vancouver, Canada .
Anna Meredith1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Office of Biobank Education and Research (OBER), University of British Columbia , Vancouver, Canada .
Tania Castillo-Pelayo2 Tumour Tissue Repository (TTR), BC Cancer Agency , Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, Canada .
Marianne K Henderson3 National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Daniel Simeon-Dubach4 Medservice, Walchwil, Switzerland .
Brent Schacter5 Canadian Tissue Repository Network, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada .
Peter H Watson1 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Office of Biobank Education and Research (OBER), University of British Columbia , Vancouver, Canada .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FeedbackFees and ChargesInternationalityBiological Specimen BanksDemographyHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27576065
PMCPMC5335806

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.