Cited by 227Endometriosis Research and TreatmentClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlEthics in Clinical Research

World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: III. Fluid biospecimen collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research

Open access
Rahmioglu, Nilufer, Fassbender, Amelie, Vitonis, Allison F., Tworoger, Shelley S., Hummelshoj, Lone, D'Hooghe, Thomas M., Adamson, G. David, Giudice, Linda C. +57 more·2014·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To harmonize standard operating procedures (SOPs) and standardize the recording of associated data for collection, processing, and storage of fluid biospecimens relevant to endometriosis. DESIGN: An international collaboration involving 34 clinical/academic centers and 3 industry collaborators from 16 countries on 5 continents. SETTING: In 2013, 2 workshops were conducted, followed by global consultation, bringing together 54 leaders in endometriosis research and sample processing worldwide. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): Consensus SOPs were based on: [1] systematic comparison of SOPs from 18 global centers collecting fluid samples from women with and without endometriosis on a medium/large scale (publication on >100 cases), [2] literature evidence where available, or consultation with laboratory experts otherwise, and [3] several global consultation rounds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Standard recommended and minimum required SOPs for biofluid collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research. RESULT(S): We developed recommended standard and minimum required SOPs for the collection, processing, and storage of plasma, serum, saliva, urine, endometrial/peritoneal fluid, and menstrual effluent, and a biospecimen data-collection form necessary for interpretation of sample-derived results. CONCLUSION(S): The Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project SOPs allow endometriosis research centers to decrease variability in biofluid sample results, facilitating between-center comparisons and collaborations. The procedures are also relevant to research into other female conditions involving biofluid samples subject to cyclic reproductive influences. The consensus SOPs are based on the best available evidence; areas with limited evidence are identified as requiring further pilot studies. The SOPs will be reviewed based on investigator feedback, and through systematic tri-annual follow-up. Updated versions will be made available at: endometriosisfoundation.org/ephect.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.1208

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many centres worldwide have been collecting blood or other body fluids such as peritoneal fluid, endometrial fluid, and menstrual fluid, as well as tissue samples-in particular ectopic and eutopic endometrium-from women with and without endometriosis, for a variety of research purposes.

    “Many centres worldwide have been collecting blood or other body fluids such as peritoneal fluid, endometrial fluid, and menstrual fluid, as well as tissue samples—in particular ectopic and eutopic endometrium—from women with and without endometriosis, for a variety of research purposes [145–147].”

    From Update on biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis (2015) · cites this paper as [147]

  • Recently, the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project (EPHect) has developed a consensus on standardisation and harmonisation of phenotypic surgical/clinical data and biologic sample collection methods in endometriosis research.

    “Recently, the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project (EPHect) has developed a consensus on standardisation and harmonisation of phenotypic surgical/clinical data and biologic sample collection methods in endometriosis research [146, 147, 149, 150].”

    From Update on biomarkers for the detection of endometriosis (2015) · cites this paper as [147]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 136 · Cited by 227

Authors
Rahmioglu, N., Fassbender, A., Vitonis, A. F., Tworoger, S. S., Hummelshoj, L., D'Hooghe, T. M., Adamson, G. D., Giudice, L. C., Becker, C. M., Zondervan, K. T., Missmer, S. A., Adamson, G. D., Allaire, C., Anchan, R., Becker, C. M., Bedaiwy, M. A., Buck Louis, G. M., Calhaz-Jorge, C., Chwalisz, K., D'Hooghe, T. M., Fassbender, A., Faustmann, T., Fazleabas, A. T., Flores, I., Forman, A., Fraser, I., Giudice, L. C., Gotte, M., Gregersen, P., Guo, S.-W., Harada, T., Hartwell, D., Horne, A. W., Hull, M. L., Hummelshoj, L., Ibrahim, M. G., Kiesel, L., Laufer, M. R., Machens, K., Mechsner, S., Missmer, S. A., Montgomery, G. W., Nap, A., Nyegaard, M., Osteen, K. G., Petta, C. A., Rahmioglu, N., Renner, S. P., Riedlinger, J., Roehrich, S., Rogers, P. A., Rombauts, L., Salumets, A., Saridogan, E., Seckin, T., Stratton, P., Sharpe-Timms, K. L., Tworoger, S., Vigano, P., Vincent, K., Vitonis, A. F., Wienhues-Thelen, U.-H., Yeung, P. P., Yong, P., & Zondervan, K. T.
Affiliations
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • Centre for Human Genetics (GB)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • World Endometriosis Research Foundation (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Fazleabas, A.T.
  • Kiesel, L.
  • Rombauts, L.
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
102
Issue
5
Pages
1233-1243
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121440326
Cited by
227
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Roche
  • Puerto Rico Science, Technology and Research Trust (2013-000032)
  • AbbVie
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD008769-11, HD57210)
  • Wellcome Trust (WT085235/Z/08/Z)
  • Bayer HealthCare
  • Astellas Pharma US
  • Ernst Schering Foundation
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Chief Scientist Office
  • Water Environment Research Foundation
  • J. Willard and Alice S. Marriott Foundation
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K011480/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
endometriosis, biospecimen collection, biospecimen storage, standard operating procedures, plasma, serum, saliva, urine, uterine fluid, peritoneal fluid, sample variability, menstrual cycle
MeSH terms
Blood Specimen Collection, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Specimen Handling, Tissue Banks, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Internationality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review