ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017
Harmonisation of biobanking standards in endometrial cancer research.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unlocking personalized endometrial cancer treatment: the critical role of the BBIRE biobank in sample collection and distribution.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- WERF Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project for Experimental Models in Endometriosis Research (EPHect-EM-Organoids): endometrial organoids as an emerging technology for endometriosis research.Molecular human reproduction · 2025Review
- Test Strip Platform Spin-Off for Telomerase Activity Detection: Development of an Electrochemical Biosensor.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Telomere and Telomerase-Associated Proteins in Endometrial Carcinogenesis and Cancer-Associated Survival.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- The effect of pre-analytical variables on downstream application and data analysis of human endometrial biopsies.Human reproduction open · 2022Article
- Human Uterine Biopsy: Research Value and Common Pitfalls.International journal of reproductive medicine · 2020Review
- Enriching Personalized Endometrial Cancer Research with the Harmonization of Biobanking Standards.Cancers · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer and its incidence is predicted to escalate by 50-100% in 2025 with a parallel increase in associated mortality. Variations in the collection, processing and storage of biospecimens can affect the generalisability of the scientific data. We aimed to harmonise the collection of biospecimens, clinical data relevant to endometrial cancer and to develop standard operative procedures for the collection, processing and storage of endometrial cancer biospecimens.
methodsWe designed research tools, which were evaluated and revised through three consensus rounds - to obtain local/regional, national and European consensus. Modified final tools were disseminated to a panel (n=40) representing all stakeholders in endometrial cancer research for consensus generation.
resultsThe final consensus demonstrated unanimous agreement with the minimal surgical and patient data collection tools. A high level of agreement was also observed for the other remaining standard tools.
conclusionsWe here present the final versions of the tools, which are freely available and easily accessible to all endometrial cancer researchers. We believe that these tools will facilitate rapid progress in endometrial cancer research, both in future collaborations and in large-scale multicentre studies.
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.