Cited by 157Ethics in Clinical ResearchResearch Data Management PracticesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Defining Biobank

Hewitt, Robert, Watson, Peter·2013·Biopreservation and Biobanking

Abstract

The term “biobank” first appeared in the scientific literature in 1996 and for the next five years was used mainly to describe human population-based biobanks. In recent years, the term has been used in a more general sense and there are currently many different definitions to be found in reports, guidelines and regulatory documents. Some definitions are general, including all types of biological sample collection facilities. Others are specific and limited to collections of human samples, sometimes just to population-based collections. In order to help resolve the confusion on this matter, we conducted a survey of the opinions of people involved in managing sample collections of all types. This survey was conducted using an online questionnaire that attracted 303 responses. The results show that there is consensus that the term biobank may be applied to biological collections of human, animal, plant or microbial samples; and that the term biobank should only be applied to sample collections with associated sample data, and to collections that are managed according to professional standards. There was no consensus on whether a collection's purpose, size or level of access should determine whether it is called a biobank. Putting these findings into perspective, we argue that a general, broad definition of biobank is here to stay, and that attention should now focus on the need for a universally-accepted, systematic classification of the different biobank types.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/bio.2013.0042

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Actual practice of informed consent for biospecimen research varies, as collections of biospecimens (or biobanks) are highly heterogeneous in terms of tissue type, procurement situation, and geographic, social, and historical context.

    “Actual practice varies, as collections of biospecimens (or biobanks) are highly heterogeneous in terms of tissue type, procurement situation, and geographic, social, and historical context (56, 58,60, 126, 146).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hewitt, R., & Watson, P.
Affiliations
  • Middle Eastern and African Society for Biopreservation and Biobanking
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Hewitt, Robert
Venue
Biopreservation and Biobanking
Published
2013-10-01
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
309-315
ISSN
  • 1947-5535 (ISSN-L)
  • 1947-5543
OpenAlex
W4254213139
Cited by
157
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10
FWCI
9.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biopreservation and Biobanking (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
biological sample collection, sample data
MeSH terms
Animals, Data Collection, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Specimen Handling, Biological Specimen Banks, Internet

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