Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623404›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2018

[Biobanking requirements from the perspective of the clinician : Experiences in hematology and oncology].

S Koschmieder, T H Brümmendorf

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Pathologe, 2018. 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

2 authors.

S KoschmiederKlinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie, Hämostaseologie und Stammzelltransplantation, Medizinische Fakultät, RWTH Uniklinik Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland. skoschmieder@ukaachen.de.
T H BrümmendorfKlinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie, Hämostaseologie und Stammzelltransplantation, Medizinische Fakultät, RWTH Uniklinik Aachen, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The requirements for optimal biobanking from the point of view of the clinical partner can be highly variable. Depending on the material, processing, storage conditions, clinical data, and involvement of external partners, there will be special requirements for the participating clinician and specialist areas. What they all have in common is that the goal of any biobanking must be to improve clinical, translational, and basic research. While in the past biomaterials often had to be individually stored for each research project, modern biobanking offers decisive advantages: a comprehensive ethics vote fulfilling state-of-the-art data safety requirements, standardized processing and storage protocols, specialized biobank software for pseudonymization and localization, protection against power failures and defects of the equipment, centralized and sustainable storage, easy localization and return of samples, and their destruction or anonymization after completion of an individual project. In addition to this important pure storage function, central biobanking can provide a link to clinical data as well as the anonymous use of samples for project-independent research. Both biobank functions serve different purposes, are associated with specific requirements, and should be pursued in parallel. If successful, central biomaterial management can achieve a sustainable improvement of academic and non-academic biomedical research and the optimal use of resources. The close collaboration between clinicians and non-clinicians is a crucial prerequisite for this.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchHematologyBiological specimen banksBiomedical researchClinical medicineClinical registriesClinical trial

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.