ArticleHealth and technology2017
From the evaluation of existing solutions to an all-inclusive package for biobanks.
Article in Health and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- LabPipe: an extensible bioinformatics toolkit to manage experimental data and metadata.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- The RNA workbench 2.0: next generation RNA data analysis.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Baobab Laboratory Information Management System: Development of an Open-Source Laboratory Information Management System for Biobanking.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The domain of biobanking has gone through many stages and as a result there are a wide range of commercial and open source software solutions available. The utilization of these software tools requires different levels of domain and technical skills for installation, configuration and ultimate us of these biobank software tools. To compound this complexity the biobanking community are required to work together in order to share knowledge and jointly build solutions to underpin the research infrastructure. We have evaluated the available tools, described them in a catalogue (BiobankApps) and made a selection of tools available to biobanks in a reference toolbox (BIBBOX) that are use-case driven. In the BiobankApps tool catalogue, both commercial and open source software solutions related to the biobanking domain are included, classified and evaluated. The evaluation covers: 1) "user review" by an authenticated user 2) domain expert: quick analysis by BBMRI members and 3) domain expert: detailed analysis and test installation with real world data. The evaluation is paired with a survey across the more "advanced" (from a technology perspective) biobanks to investigate what tools are currently used and summarises known benefits/drawbacks of the respective packages. In the second step we recommend tools for specific use cases, and install, configure and connect these in the BIBBOX framework. This service also builds on the existing work in the United Kingdom in seeking to establish the motivations for different stakeholders to become involved and therefore assisting in prioritising the use-cases based on the level of need and support within the research community. All tools associated to a use-case are available as BIBBOX applications (technically this is achieved by docker containers), which are integrated in the BIBBOX framework with central identification and user management. In future work we plan to share the acquired knowledge with other networks, develop an Application Programmable Interface (API) for the exchange of metadata with other tool catalogues and work on an ontology for the evaluation of biobank software.
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.