ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2017
Consensus-Driven Development of a Terminology for Biobanking, the Duke Experience.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decentralized Biobanking Apps for Patient Tracking of Biospecimen Research: Real-World Usability and Feasibility Study.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Extending the Minimum Information About BIobank Data Sharing Terminology to Describe Samples, Sample Donors, and Events.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2020Article
- Pathology and Biobanking.Turk patoloji dergisi · 2020Review
- Rationalized Development of a Campus-Wide Cell Line Dataset for Implementation in the Biobank LIMS System at Bioresource Center Ghent.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- Biospecimens and Biobanking in Global Health.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2018Review
- Evaluating Generalizability of a Biospecimen Informatics Approach: Support for Local Requirements and Best Practices.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biobanking at Duke University has existed for decades and has grown over time in silos and based on specialized needs, as is true with most biomedical research centers. These silos developed informatics systems to support their own individual requirements, with no regard for semantic or syntactic interoperability. Duke undertook an initiative to implement an enterprise-wide biobanking information system to serve its many diverse biobanking entities. A significant part of this initiative was the development of a common terminology for use in the commercial software platform. Common terminology provides the foundation for interoperability across biobanks for data and information sharing. We engaged experts in research, informatics, and biobanking through a consensus-driven process to agree on 361 terms and their definitions that encompass the lifecycle of a biospecimen. Existing standards, common terms, and data elements from published articles provided a foundation on which to build the biobanking terminology; a broader set of stakeholders then provided additional input and feedback in a secondary vetting process. The resulting standardized biobanking terminology is now available for sharing with the biobanking community to serve as a foundation for other institutions who are considering a similar initiative.
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.