Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28510101›Full record

ReviewBiophysical reviews2015

A critical analysis of cancer biobank practices in relation to biospecimen quality.

Amanda Rush, Kevin Spring, Jennifer A Byrne

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pathology and Biobanking.Turk patoloji dergisi · 2020
    Review
  7. 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

3 authors.

Amanda RushMolecular Oncology Laboratory, Children's Cancer Research Unit, Kids Research Institute, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, 2145, NSW, Australia.
Kevin SpringIngham Institute, PO Box 3151 (Westfield Liverpool), Liverpool, 2170, NSW, Australia.
Jennifer A ByrneMolecular Oncology Laboratory, Children's Cancer Research Unit, Kids Research Institute, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, 2145, NSW, Australia. jennifer.byrne@health.nsw.gov.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are concerns that a substantial proportion of published research data is not reproducible, which may partially explain the frequent failure to translate pre-clinical results to clinical care. High-quality cancer biospecimens are needed for robust, reproducible research findings, with most researchers obtaining these specimens from cancer biobanks or tumour banks. This review provides an overview of the types of quality control (QC) activities conducted within cancer biobanks that pertain to biospecimen quality and of biospecimen quality reporting tools, including SPREC and BRISQ. We examine how QC assay results and other biospecimen data are communicated from biobanks to researchers, and whether these activities lead to improved biospecimen quality reporting within the literature and/or to improved research outcomes. We also discuss operational factors that limit QC activities within biobanks and evidence gaps requiring further research. In summary, whereas the provision of quality biospecimens is a common aim of cancer biobanks, QC activities remain underreported and are rarely discussed in the literature, compared with other aspects of biobank operations. Further research is required to determine how biobanks can most efficiently optimise biospecimen quality, and how communication between biobanks and researchers can be improved.

Indexed as

BiobankBiospecimen qualityCancerQuality controlReportingResearch reproducibility

Identifiers

PMID28510101
PMCPMC5418485

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.