Biobanks that intend to serve as high-performing and stable elements of an innovative research ecosystem must have an established system for regular measurement and evaluation using appropriately set indicators. The main objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of indicators in the context of biobanking, with new perspectives to highlight the existence of numerous options and introduce indicators that could help overcome problems associated with the difficult assessment of the impact of biobanks.
Methods:
A literature review was performed to identify publications relevant to the topic of indicators in biobanking. The Web of Science Core Collection and PubMed databases were searched using specific keywords. In addition, three articles that focused on indicators designed for the evaluation of research infrastructures were included in the review.
Results:
Based on the scientific literature for the biobanking field, many types of quantitative and qualitative indicators exist. They are mainly related to the quantity and quality of data and samples, their distribution, the monitoring of research projects, and subsequent publication outputs. The indicators identified in the biobanking literature primarily focus on the outcome, not the impact.
Conclusions:
Indicators identified in the biobanking literature may be further expanded with suggestions designed for other types of research infrastructures, while considering the context where biobanks operate and the needs of individual biobanking stakeholders. The establishment of a comprehensive monitoring system that captures all necessary elements is crucial for modern biobanks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC). Biobanks and the Public: Governing Biomedical Research Resources in Europe. BBMRI: Austria;, 2013; 96 p. A Report from the BBMRI Project. Available from: https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/wp-content/uploads/BBMRI-Biobanks-and-the-Public.pdf [Last accessed: March15, 2022].
2.
RogersJ, CarolinT, VaughtJ, et al.Biobankonomics: A taxonomy for evaluating the economic benefits of standardized centralized human biobanking for translational research. J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, 2011; 2011(42):32–38; doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgr010.
3.
MatzkeLA, TarlingTE, GaliB, et al.Finding the value in biobanks: Enhancing the CTRNet locator. Biopreserv Biobank, 2021; 20(2):132–137; doi: 10.1089/bio.2021.0043.
4.
RushA, MatzkeL, CooperS, et al.Research perspective on utilizing and valuing tumor biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank, 2019; 17(3):219–229; doi: 10.1089/bio.2018.0099.
GeeS, OliverR, CorfieldJ, et al.Biobank finances: A socio-economic analysis and review. Biopreserv Biobank, 2015; 13(6):435–451; doi: 10.1089/bio.2015.0030.
7.
SudoiA, De VriesJ, KamuyaD. A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking. BMC Med Ethics, 2021; 22(1):1–16; doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00671-x.
8.
CiaburriM, NapolitanoM, BravoE. Business planning in biobanking: How to implement a tool for sustainability. Biopreserv Biobank, 2017; 15(1):46–56; doi: 10.1089/bio.2016.0045.
9.
RushA, CatchpooleDR, LingR. Improving academic biobank value and sustainability through an outputs focus. Value Health, 2020; 23(8):1072–1078; doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.05.010.
10.
O'DohertyKC, BurgessMM, EdwardsK, et al.From consent to institutions: Designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med, 2011; 73(3):367–374; doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046.
11.
ConradieEH, MalherbeH, HendrikszCJ, et al.An overview of benefits and challenges of rare disease biobanking in Africa, focusing on South Africa. Biopreserv Biobank, 2021; 19(2):143–150; doi: 10.1089/bio.2020.0108.
12.
ByrneJA, CarpenterJE, CarterC, et al.Building research support capacity across human health biobanks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Biomark Insights, 2021; 16:1–9; doi: 10.1177/11772719211024100.
13.
WuD, WangS, ChunpingH, et al.Ten years of the cohort biobank: Bibliometric outcomes. Biopreserv Biobank, 2021; 19(4):269–279; doi: 10.1089/bio.2020.0096.
14.
GrizzleWE, BledsoeMJ, Al DiffalhaS, et al.The utilization of biospecimens: Impact of the choice of biobanking model. Biopreserv Biobank, 2019; 17(3):230–242; doi: 10.1089/bio.2019.0008.
MatzkeL, DeeS, BartlettJ, et al.A practical tool for modeling biospecimen user fees. Biopreserv Biobank, 2014; 12(4):234–239; doi: 10.1089/bio.2014.0008.
18.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Reference Framework for Assessing the Scientific and Socio-Economic Impact of Research Infrastructures. OECD: Paris; 2019; 50 p. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/3ffee43b-en [Last accessed January15, 2022].
19.
Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC). Performance Indicators for BBMRI-ERIS.v1.3. Vienna; 2017; 26 p. Available from: https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/wp-content/uploads/D1.3_KPI.pdf [Last accessed: January15, 2022].
HofmanV, IlieM, LongE, et al.Measuring the contribution of tumor biobanks to research in oncology: Surrogate indicators and bibliographic output. Biopreserv Biobank, 2013; 11(4):235–244; doi: 10.1089/bio.2013.0015.
22.
MabileL, DalgleishR, ThorissonGA, et al.Quantifying the use of bioresources for promoting their sharing in scientific research. Gigascience, 2013; 2(1):1–8; doi: 10.1186/2047–2217X-2-7.
23.
WatsonPH, NussbeckSY, CarterC, et al.A framework for biobank sustainability. Biopreserv Biobank, 2014; 12(1):60–68; doi: 10.1089/bio.2013.0064.
24.
BrownT, KellyDD, VercauterenSM, et al.How biobanks are assessing and measuring their financial sustainability. Biopreserv Biobank, 2017; 15(1):65–71; doi: 10.1089/bio.2016.0086.
25.
CamposAHJFM, SilvaAA, MotaLDDC, et al.The value of a tumor bank in the development of cancer research in Brazil: 13 Years of experience at the A C Camargo Hospital. Biopreserv Biobank, 2012; 10(2):168–173; doi: 10.1089/bio.2011.0032.
26.
Matharoo-BallB, ThomsonBJ. Nottingham health science biobank: A sustainable bioresource. Biopreserv Biobank, 2014; 12(5):312–316; doi: 10.1089/bio.2014.0056.
27.
TarlingTE, LasserF, CarterC, et al.Business planning for a campus-wide biobank. Biopreserv Biobank, 2017; 15(1):37–45; doi: 10.1089/bio.2016.0077.
28.
BledsoeMJ, RechtmanL, WagnerL, et al.Analysis of biospecimen demand and utilization of samples from the national amyotrophic lateral sclerosis biorepository. Biopreserv Biobank, 2021; 19(5):432–437; doi: 10.1089/bio.2021.0039.
29.
MatzkeLAM, FombonneB, WatsonPH, et al.Fundamental considerations for biobank legacy planning. Biopreserv Biobank, 2016; 14(2):99–106; doi: 10.1089/bio.2015.0073.
30.
Simeon-DubachD, WatsonP. Biobanking 3.0: Evidence based and customer focused biobanking. Clin Biochem, 2014; 47(4–5):300–308; doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.12.018.
KongsholmNCH, ChristensenST, HermannJR, et al.Challenges for the sustainability of university-run biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank, 2018; 16(4):312–321; doi: 10.1089/bio.2018.0054.
33.
MeredithAJ, SlottyA, MatzkeL, et al.A model to estimate frozen tissue collection targets in biobanks to support cancer research. Biopreserv Biobank, 2015; 13(5):356–362; doi: 10.1089/bio.2014.0081.
34.
HendersonMK, GoldringK, Simeon-DubachD. Advancing professionalization of biobank business operations: A worldwide survey. Biopreserv Biobank, 2019; 17(1):71–75; doi: 10.1089/bio.2018.0079.
35.
HendersonMK, GoldringK, Simeon-DubachD. Advancing professionalization of biobank business operations: Performance and utilization. Biopreserv Biobank, 2019; 17(3):213–218; doi: 10.1089/bio.2019.0005.
36.
KolarJ, HarrisonA, GliksohnF, et al. Key Performance Indicators of Research Infrastructures. Italy; 2018. Available from: Key performance indicators of Research Infrastructures/2-Ceric (ceric-eric.eu) [Last accessed: January15, 2022].
37.
PenfieldT, BakerMJ, ScobleR, et al.Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Res Eval, 2014; 23(1):21–32; doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvt021.
38.
BetsouF. The ISBER self-assessment tool indicates main pathways for improvement in biobanks and supports international standardization. Biopreserv Biobank, 2018; 16(1):7–8; doi: 10.1089/bio.2017.0121.
39.
RushA, ChristiansenJH, FarrellJP, et al.Biobank classification in an Australian setting. Biopreserv Biobank, 2015; 13(3):212–218; doi: 10.1089/bio.2015.0007.
40.
SawyerSJ, OttoJM, SuhKS. Ensuring biobank value through effective utilization. Biopreserv Biobank, 2015; 13(6):396–400; doi: 10.1089/bio.2015.29043.mkh.
41.
MooreHM, KellyA, JewellSD, et al.Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality. Biopreserv Biobank, 2011; 9(1):57–70; doi: 10.1089/bio.2010.0036.
42.
Simeon-DubachD, ZeisbergerSM, HoerstrupSP. Quality assurance in biobanking for pre-clinical research. Transfus Med Hemother, 2016; 43(5):353–357; doi: 10.1159/000448254.
43.
MeredithAJ, Simeon-DubachD, MatzkeLA, et al.Biospecimen data reporting in the research literature. Biopreserv Biobank, 2019; 17(4):326–333; doi: 10.1089/bio.2018.0143.
44.
HaslacherH, GernerM, HoferP, et al.Usage data and scientific impact of the prospectively established fluid bioresources at the hospital-based MedUni Wien Biobank. Biopreserv Biobank, 2018; 16(6):477–482; doi: 10.1089/bio.2018.0032.
45.
SchneiderD, RiegmanPHJ, CroninM, et al.Accelerating the development and validation of new value-based diagnostics by leveraging biobanks. Public Health Genom, 2016; 19(3):160–169; doi: 10.1159/000446534.
46.
DemirI, MurtaghMJ. Data sharing across biobanks: Epistemic values, data mutability, and data incommensurability. New Genet Soc, 2013; 32(4):350–365; doi: 10.1080/14636778.2013.846582.
47.
RushA, ByrneJA. Quality and reporting practices in an Australian cancer biobank cohort. Clin Biochem, 2016; 49(6):492–497; doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.12.007.
48.
BraunL, LesperanceM, Mes-MassonsAM, et al.Individual investigator profiles of biospecimen use in cancer research. Biopreserv Biobank, 2014; 12(3):192–198; doi: 10.1089/bio.2013.0092.
49.
ZikaE, PaciD, Schulte In Den BäumenT, et al.Biobanks in Europe: Prospects for Harmonisation and Networking. Joint Research Centre: Seville;, 2010; 175 p. JRC Working Papers JRC57831. Available from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC57831 [Last accessed February15, 2022].
50.
ColledgeFMA, ElgerBS, ShawDM. Conferring authorship: Biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research. PLoS One, 2013; 8(9):e76686; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076686.
51.
VoraT, ThackerN. Impacts of a biobank: Bridging the gap in translational cancer medicine. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol, 2015; 36(1):17–23; doi: 10.4103/0971-5851.151773.
52.
BravoE, Cambon-ThomsenA, GourraudP, et al.The BRIF (Bioresource Research Impact Factor) as a tool for improving bioresource sharing in biomedical research. Nat Preced 2011; doi: 10.1038/npre.2011.6568.1. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/npre.2011.6568.1#citeas [Last accessed: March10, 2022].
53.
BravoE, CalzolariA, De CastroP. et al. Developing a guideline to standardize the citation of bioresources in journal articles (CoBRA). BMC Med, 2015; 13(1):33; doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0266-y.
54.
HowardHC, MascalzoniD, MabileL. et al. How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: Ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF). J Community Genet, 2018; 9(2):169–176; doi: 10.1007/s12687-017-0332-6.
55.
ZhangG, XiaB, LiuT, et al.A high-quality biobank supports breast cancer research in Harbin, China. Biopreserv Biobank, 2016; 14(5):375–382; doi: 10.1089/bio.2015.0010.
56.
FthenouE, Al ThaniA, Al MarriA, et al.Qatar biobank: A paradigm of translating biobank science into evidence-based health care interventions. Biopreserv Biobank, 2019; 17(6):491–493; doi: 10.1089/bio.2019.0051.
57.
LinJC, HsiaoWWW, FanC-T. Transformation of the Taiwan Biobank 3.0: Vertical and horizontal integration. J Transl Med, 2020; 18(1):1–13; doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02451-4.
58.
Al DiffalhaS, SextonKC, WatsonPH, et al.The importance of human tissue bioresources in advancing biomedical research. Biopreserv Biobank, 2019; 17(3):209–212; doi: 10.1089/bio.2019.0039.
59.
CamposAH, SchreederM, Parry-JonesA, et al.Addressing the challenge of financial sustainability in biobanking. Biopreserv Biobank, 2015; 13(6):387–395; doi: 10.1089/bio.2015.29042.ahc.
60.
GlynnP, GreenlandP. Contributions of the UK biobank high impact papers in the era of precision medicine. Eur J Epidemiol, 2020; 35(1):5–10; doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00606-7.
61.
ZakariaS, GrantJ, LuffJ. Fundamental challenges in assessing the impact of research infrastructure. Health Res Policy Syst, 2021; 19(1):1–9; doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00769-z.
62.
AdamP, OvseikoPV, GrantJ, et al.ISRIA statement: Ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment. Health Res Policy Syst, 2018; 16(1):8; doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0281-5.
63.
AlbertM, BartlettJ, JohnstonRN, et al.Biobank bootstrapping: Is biobank sustainability possible through cost recovery?. Biopreserv Biobank, 2014; 12(6):374–380; doi: 10.1089/bio.2014.0051.
64.
CarpenterJE, ClarkeCL. Biobanking sustainability-experiences of the australian breast cancer tissue bank (ABCTB). Biopreserv Biobank, 2014; 12(6):395–401; doi: 10.1089/bio.2014.0055.
65.
DoucetM, YuilleM, GeorghiouL, et al.Biobank sustainability: Current status and future prospects. J Biorepos Sci Appl Med, 2017; 5:1–7; doi: 10.2147/bsam.s100899.
66.
KellySM, WiehagenLT, SchumacherPE, et al.Methods to improve sustainability of a large academic biorepository. Biopreserv Biobank, 2017; 15(1):31–36; doi: 10.1089/bio.2016.0076.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
