Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294024›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2019

Biobank Quality Management in the BBMRI.be Network.

Loes Linsen, Veronique T'Joen, Catherine Van Der Straeten, Kristel Van Landuyt, Etienne Marbaix, Sofie Bekaert, Nadine Ectors

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Basic principles of biobanking: from biological samples to precision medicine for patients.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
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

7 authors.

Loes LinsenBiobank, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Veronique T'JoenBioresource Center Ghent, Health Innovation and Research Institute, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Catherine Van Der StraetenBioresource Center Ghent, Health Innovation and Research Institute, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Kristel Van LanduytBiobank, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Etienne MarbaixPathology Department, de Duve Institute, Saint-Luc University Clinics, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Sofie BekaertDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty for Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Nadine EctorsBiobank, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From as early as 2005, different guidelines and quality standards covering biobank activities and sample handling methods have been developed to improve and guarantee the reproducibility of biomarker research. Ten years on, the BBMRI.be Quality working group wanted to gauge the current situation of these aspects in the biobanks of the BBMRI.be network. To this end, two online surveys were launched (fall 2017 and fall 2018) to the biobank quality managers in the BBMRI.be network to determine the status and setup of their current quality management system (QMS) and how their QMS and related practices have evolved over a 14 month time period. All biobanks addressed by the two surveys provided a complete response (12 and 13, respectively). A QMS was implemented in 85% of biobanks, with 4 standards emerging as primary basis. Supplementary guidelines were used, with a strong preference for the ISBER best practices for biobanks. The Standard Preanalytical Code-an indicator of the preanalytical lifecycle of a biospecimen impacting the downstream analysis results-was already implemented in 50% of the biobanks while the other half intends future implementation. To assess and maintain the quality of their QMS, 62% of biobanks used self-assessment tools and 71% participated in proficiency testing schemes. The majority of biobanks had implemented procedures for general and biobank specific activities. However, policies regarding the business and sustainability aspect of biobank were only implemented in a limited number of biobanks. A clear desire for a peer-review audit was expressed by 69% of biobanks, with over half of them intending to implement the recently published biobank standard ISO20387. Overall, the biobanks of the BBMRI.be network have actively implemented a solid quality approach in their practices. The implementation of ISO 20387 may bring further professionalization of activities. Based on the needs expressed in this survey, the Quality working group will be setting up an audit program for the BBMRI.be biobanks, to enhance, harmonize and streamline their activities. On the whole, the biobanks in the BBMRI.be network are able to substantially contribute to translational research, as a primary facilitator guaranteeing high quality standards and reproducibility.

Indexed as

auditBBMRI.bebiobankISO 20387QMSqualitysurvey

Identifiers

PMID31294024
PMCPMC6606712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.