ArticleBiosafety and health2024
Establishment of the benchmarking tool for evaluating the operation of biorepositories for pathogenic resource using a modified Delphi method.
Article in Biosafety and health, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, as the infectious diseases caused by pathogens such as novel coronavirus and mpox (formerly called monkeypox) spread globally, the significance of identification, preservation, and sharing of pathogenic resources become prominent. Along with the rapid development of biorepositories, it is imperative to evaluate their operation in a scientific manner. By using the literature review and modified Delphi method, this study develops a benchmarking tool for the comprehensive evaluation of the operation of biorepositories for pathogenic resources. The effective response rates of both rounds of expert surveys were 100 %. The authority coefficients (Cr) were 0.82 and 0.85, respectively, manifesting the reliability of consultation results. In the second-round survey, the Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W) of all indicators ranged from 0.09 to 0.31 (
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.