ArticleEuropean burn journal2024
Establishing a Collaborative Genomic Repository for Adult Burn Survivors: A Burn Model System Feasibility Study.
Article in European burn journal, 2024. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to integrate a genetic repository with an existing longitudinal national burn database. We set out two primary objectives, namely (1) to develop standard operating procedures for genetic sample collection and storage, DNA isolation, and data integration into an existing multicenter database; and (2) to demonstrate the feasibility of correlating genetic variation to functional outcomes in a pilot study, using the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene. Dubbed the worrier/warrior gene, COMT variants have been associated with varying phenotypes of post-traumatic stress, wellbeing, and resilience. Between August 2018 and July 2020, COMT variants were identified for 111 participants from three sites and correlated with their outcome data. We found no association between COMT variants and functional outcomes, likely due to the inadequate sample size. We also asked all potential participants why they consented to or refused genetic analysis. A thematic analysis of responses revealed altruism and personal interest/enthusiasm in the study as top reasons for consenting. Privacy concerns were the most common reason for refusal. In conclusion, we successfully developed standard operating procedures for genetic sample collection and storage, DNA isolation, and data integration into an existing database, and we demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a multicenter collaborative study using a centralized lab location.
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.