Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29063372›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019

Obstacles to Widening Biosample Research.

Flora Colledge, Jakob Passweg, Bernice Elger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Flora ColledgeDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Basel, Birsstrasse 320b, 4052, Basel, Switzerland. flora.colledge@unibas.ch.
Jakob PasswegHematology Clinic, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bernice ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland. b.elger@unibas.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Switzerland has an excellent culture of medical research and is a melting pot for medical experts with international expertise. Nevertheless, as in other countries, the resources available to medical researchers are not being fully used. Biological samples, which enable a host of medical research studies to be carried out without invasive methods involving patients, are frequently left unused or forgotten. The aim of this study is to examine the experiences of biobank stakeholders regarding the use or underuse of biosamples, in order to develop paths to optimize biosample research. Interviews were carried out with 36 biobank stakeholders in Switzerland concerning their experiences with biosample use, and the possible obstacles at each stage of the process. Interviews revealed that standard operating procedures were the most frequently cited obstacle, although these were not judged to be severe hindrances. Despite a stated desire to develop biosample research, skepticism of sharing networks and wariness of new partnerships were strong themes. Biobanking still functions as an emerging field, in which exchange practices have yet to be established at the national and international levels. Sample exchange continues to function largely based on personal contacts; while this is an inherent feature of competitive medical research, opportunities for large-scale studies may be lost due to excessive caution.

Indexed as

AttitudeBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchInformation DisseminationStakeholder ParticipationCompetitive BehaviorCooperative BehaviorHealth ResourcesHumansSwitzerlandBiobankBiosampleCollaborationSharing

Identifiers

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.