Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29062493›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2015

Biobanking from the patient perspective.

Derick Mitchell, Jan Geissler, Alison Parry-Jones, Hans Keulen, Doris C Schmitt, Rosaria Vavassori, Balwir Matharoo-Ball

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Basic principles of biobanking: from biological samples to precision medicine for patients.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Derick MitchellEU Joint Programme-Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND), 1st floor, Liffey Trust Building, 117-126 Upper Sheriff St., Dublin, Ireland.
Jan GeisslerLeukemia Patient Advocates Foundation, Bern, Switzerland.
Alison Parry-JonesWales Cancer Bank, Cardiff University, Room 273, B-C link corridor, 2nd Floor, UHW Main Building, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN UK.
Hans KeulenChordoma Foundation, PO Box 2127, Durham, NC 27702 USA.
Doris C SchmittFoundation PATH, Munich, Germany.
Rosaria VavassoriItalian Association for Alternating Hemiplegia of Childhood, Verderio (LC), Italy.
Balwir Matharoo-BallNottingham Health Science Biobank, EMPATH Pathology Services, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, City Campus, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryBiobanks are collections of donations of biological material (DNA, cells, tissue etc.) and related data which are very valuable for research into human diseases. A variety of biobanks exist for example within hospitals, research institutes, pharmaceutical companies and patient organisations. The role of patients in biobanking is changing from being seen simply as donors, to actual collaborators in the design, development and the running of biobanks. In this article, we provide a number of examples of patients acting as partners at the heart of biobanking, where their voice and perspective is being seen and used as a valuable resource for the biobank. Our aim is that these examples can be used by those who work with patients in biobank-based research, to design future strategies for patient and public involvement in all biobanks. ABSTRACT: Biobanks and biobanking research plays an increasingly important role in healthcare research and delivery as health systems become more patient-centred and medicine becomes more personalised. There is also growing acceptance and appreciation of the value that patients, patient advocacy organisations and the public can bring as stakeholders in biobanking and more generally in research. Therefore, the importance of active, early and sustained engagement and involvement of patient and public representatives in biobanks will become increasingly relevant. Organising and facilitating patient and public involvement in biobanking takes considerable time and effort for all stakeholders involved. Therefore, for any biobank operator considering involving patients and the public in their biobanking activities, consideration of best practices, current guidance, ethical issues and evaluation of involvement will be important. In this article, we demonstrate that patients are much more than donors to biobanks-they are collaborators at the heart of biobanking with an important voice to identify perspective, which can be an extremely valuable resource for all biobanks to utilise. The case studies herein provide examples of good practice of patient involvement in biobanking as well as outcomes from these practices, and lessons learned. Our aim is to provide useful insights from these efforts and potential future strategies for the multiple stakeholders that work with patients and the public involved in biobank-based research.

Indexed as

BiobankInvolvementPartneringPatientResearch

Identifiers

PMID29062493
PMCPMC5598087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.