Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30604281›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience bulletin2019

Brain Banking for Research into Neurodegenerative Disorders and Ageing.

Claire E Shepherd, Holly Alvendia, Glenda M Halliday

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience bulletin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The pROS of Autophagy in Neuronal Health.Journal of molecular biology · 2020
    Review
  17. Progress in Human Brain Banking in China.Neuroscience bulletin · 2019
    Article
  18. 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.

Claire E ShepherdNeuroscience Research Australia and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0399-3218
Holly AlvendiaNeuroscience Research Australia and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Glenda M HallidayNeuroscience Research Australia and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. glenda.halliday@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0422-8398

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in cellular and molecular biology underpin most current therapeutic advances in medicine. Such advances for neurological and neurodegenerative diseases are hindered by the lack of similar specimens. It is becoming increasingly evident that greater access to human brain tissue is necessary to understand both the cellular biology of these diseases and their variation. Research in these areas is vital to the development of viable therapeutic options for these currently untreatable diseases. The development and coordination of human brain specimen collection through brain banks is evolving. This perspective article from the Sydney Brain Bank reviews data concerning the best ways to collect and store material for different research purposes.

Indexed as

AgingBiomedical ResearchBrainNeurodegenerative DiseasesTissue BanksHumansTissue PreservationBrain bankingBrain donationHuman brain tissue processingNeurodegenerative diseases

Identifiers

PMID30604281
PMCPMC6426907

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.