ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2019
Changing the Culture of Tumor Tissue Biobanking in a Tertiary Referral Hospital Using an Audit and Feedback Strategy.
Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined whether the introduction of an audit and feedback strategy applied to specimens dissected at the John Hunter Hospital anatomical pathology department improved the number of formalin fixed tumor specimens sampled by anatomical pathology registrars for the Hunter Cancer Biobank. During the audit period (1/7/16 to 30/6/17) a total of 949 tumor specimens were sampled for the biobank compared with 393 of the previous year (1/7/15 to 30/6/16) resulting in a 141% increase in specimens biobanked. A targeted group of previously underrepresented specimen types, including brain, lung, and lymph node tumors were studied in depth to establish which specimens were sampled and which potentially biobankable specimens were "missed". In this targeted group there was a 285% increase in the number of specimens biobanked and a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in tumor sampling in all three specimen types over the audit period compared with the previous year. In conclusion, the introduction of an audit and feedback strategy improved tumor tissue collection for biobanking. A potential drawback of email feedback is that overfixation may occur due to administrative time lag and these specimens must be documented accordingly because some tests are dependent on an optimal fixation time. Taking extra blocks for biobanking on all potential tumor specimens with excess tumor tissue at the time of cut-up can alleviate this problem.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.