ArticleApplied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association2025
Biosafety Level 2 Training Programs at Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States.
Article in Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) training programs were benchmarked at institutions of higher learning in the United States by surveying Biosafety Officers (BSOs). The goal of this survey was to not only compare Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) requirements for BSL-2 training but also compare delivery format, length of training, inclusion of a hands-on or interactive component, and requirement for refresher training. Methods: Survey subjects were drawn from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry of BSOs and were limited to BSOs at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Twelve survey questions were developed in this study. The survey was sent to 324 BSOs, of which 108 responded with sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Results: The survey found that BSL-2 training is required by the institutional and/or IBC policy at 88% of institutions, is optional at 5.6%, and not offered at 6.5%. More than half of the respondents (60.4%) offered BSL-2 training in an on-demand manner. Some institutions (34.5%) include a component of training that is in person. However, this training does not always include hands-on exercises or interactive activities. The survey indicated that most (96.6%) institutions offered BSL-2 training less than three hours in length, and many (58%) institutions required refresher training. Conclusions: Most institutions of higher learning in the United States, which are registered with the NIH, require BSL-2 training for laboratory personnel involved in research and teaching.
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.