Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33226280›Full record

ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2020

Biobanking in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond: Part 2. A Set of Tool Implementation Case Studies.

Clare M Allocca, Emma Snapes, Monique Albert, Marianna J Bledsoe, Marta G Castelhano, Mieke De Wilde, Koh Furuta, Zisis Kozlakidis, Dunja Martin, Anabela Martins and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Clare M AlloccaStandards Coordination Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Emma SnapesBioConsulting, Cork, Ireland.
Monique AlbertOntario Tumour Bank, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Canada.
Marianna J BledsoeBiopreservation and Biobanking, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA.
Marta G CastelhanoCornell Veterinary Biobank, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Mieke De WildeBiobank Antwerp, UZA-UAntwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium.
Koh FurutaUrayasu Warakuen Clinic, Urayasu, Japan.
Zisis KozlakidisInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Dunja MartinLeibniz Institute DSMZ-German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany.
Anabela MartinsMicoteca da Universidade do Minho, Centro de Engenharia Biológica, Braga, Portugal.
Shannon J McCallDuke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Brent SchacterCancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Funding

Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JOHN N. NORTON · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
Cooperative Human Tissue Network Support through Duke's BioRepository & Precision Pathology CenterUM1CA239755 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Shannon Jones McCall · 2019 to 2026
$5.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA239755World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 era has brought about a number of novel challenges for the global biobanking community. An array of diverse tools (e.g., standards, best practices, and plans) exists to support quality and fitness-for-purpose in biobank operations. The International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER) COVID-19 Response Task Force has set out to identify needs and gaps in these tools and make recommendations for the next generation of available tools, having closely examined the COVID-19-related challenges. While conducting this work to examine the relationships between tools and biobank adaptability, a subgroup of the task force conducted a parallel effort to develop and describe individual COVID-19 era case studies based on a number of operating biobanks. Each case study presents a different combination of implemented tools. Observations and lessons learned from these case studies are provided, and experiences with tool implementation are discussed. This information is supplemented by data relating to tool usefulness that was obtained through an ISBER survey discussed in a companion article. The knowledge gained from this study will be combined with other task force efforts to make recommendations to better position the biobanking community in their response to future emergencies.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchCOVID-19PandemicsHumansSARS-CoV-2biobankingconformity assessmentCOVID-19quality management systemstandardstools

Identifiers

PMID33226280
PMCPMC7757526

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.