Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30457879›Full record

ReviewBiopreservation and biobanking2018

Lessons Learned During Three Decades of Operations of Two Prospective Bioresources.

William E Grizzle, Katherine C Sexton, Diane McGarvey, Zachery V Menchhofen, Virginia LiVolsi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Use of Human Tissues for Research: What Investigators Need to Know.Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Issues in the Use of Human Tissues to Support Precision Medicine.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2019
    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

5 authors.

William E GrizzleDivision of Anatomic Pathology, Department of Pathology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Katherine C SextonDivision of Anatomic Pathology, Department of Pathology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Diane McGarveyDepartment of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Zachery V MenchhofenDepartment of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Virginia LiVolsiDepartment of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

XRAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA013148 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Robert S Welner · 1985 to 2026
$165.9M
UAB Recessive PKD Research and Translational Core CenterP30DK074038 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI YODER, BRADLEY K. · 2005 to 2019
$16.6M
Pulmonary Hypertension Breakthrough InitiativeR24HL123767 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ALDRED, MICHEALA A, ERZURUM, SERPIL C. · 2014 to 2017
$10.1M
COLLABORATIVE HUMAN TISSUE NETWORK EASTERN DIVISIONUM1CA183711 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LIVOLSI, VIRGINIA ANNE · 2014 to 2018
$5.0M
Collaborative Human Tissue NetworkUM1CA183728 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GRIZZLE, WILLIAM E. · 2014 to 2018
$3.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA013148NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA183711NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA183728NHLBI NIH HHS R24 HL123767NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK074038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prospective collection is a model through which biospecimens are provided for research. Using this model, biospecimens are collected based on real-time requests from the research community instead of being collected based on the prediction of future requests. We describe the lessons learned by two bioresources that have operated successfully using a prospective model for over three decades. Our goal is to improve other bioresources by increasing utilization of biospecimens that honor consented donors who provide biospecimens to the research community; this provides strong evidence of stewardship of the public trust. The operation of these sites requires flexibility, close communication, and cooperation with the investigator in developing a standard operating procedure (protocol) based on the investigator's needs described in their initial request. If practicable, almost any preparation can be provided, including fresh (nonfrozen) biospecimens and tissue blots. A quality management system includes rigorous quality control of the specific biospecimens provided to an investigator. The informatics approach focuses on the investigator, the investigator's request, and the biospecimens collected for the investigator; the informatics focus of classic biobanks is on the biospecimens collected to match expected future requests. These lessons have been incorporated into our current operations. Standard investigator agreements (e.g., indemnification and no unapproved biospecimen transfers to third parties) replace material transfer agreements. We have operated under the prospective model of the Cooperative Human Tissue Network (CHTN), which has been successful and has provided over 1.2 million biospecimens since it began in 1987. These tissues have supported over 4300 peer-reviewed scientific articles. Since 2012, about 1000 publications have indicated support by CHTN tissues; their average citation rate is 31 with an H factor of 61. Also, during this period, 114 patents cited the CHTN. We also describe disadvantages of prospective bioresources (e.g., inadequate distribution of rare tissues, biospecimens not immediately available, and delayed clinical outcomes).

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksComputational BiologyCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansMarketingProspective StudiesTissue and Organ ProcurementUnited StatesbiobankbiodistributorbioresourcebiospecimencitationsH factorhuman tissuespatentsprospective modelpublicationsutilization

Identifiers

PMID30457879
PMCPMC6308275

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.