ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2023
Developing cancer biobanks in Romania: understanding the knowledge and recommendations in assessing a clinical dataset for biospecimens.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: In the context of the novelty of personalized medicine and biobanking in Romania, there is an acute need to analyze the degree of knowledge of the key actors in the domain. The present study sought to investigate the understanding of 'biobanking' and 'personalized medicine' in three categories of participants in the development of a biobank - health professionals (clinicians/diagnosticians), scientific researchers, and patients, in order to identify possible faults regarding the level of information. The secondary objective of this study was to identify key elements and relevant data that should be detailed in the clinical dataset that accompanies a biological sample. Methods: A total of 120 participants were included in this study that were divided into three categories that represent key actors in the development and management of a cancer biobank - clinicians (n=40), scientific researchers (n=40), and oncology patients (n=40). Results: The survey indicated that the terms 'biobank' and 'personalized medicine' are unknown only in a proportion of patients, while for the other two groups, these terms are already known. The second questionnaire allowed the arrangement of a recommended clinical dataset to be filled when a biological sample is provided to be included in a cancer biobank. Conclusions: The trust of patients and healthcare professionals in building biobanks that adhere to ethical and operational standards in Romania is important, as the development of artificial intelligence and databases allows advanced knowledge and connection of findings from different databases and, therefore, brings the concept of personalized medicine closer to the clinical practice. The information included in this dataset will be integrated and constitutes a comprehensive biobank database. All these aspects are meant to increase the utility of the specimens in cancer research, as clearly annotated samples, along with prospective data, bring valuable knowledge that helps scientific researchers and clinicians make the clinical connection between the molecular alterations and the phenotype of particular patients or a disease.
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.