4.7 Review

A consensus protocol for the standardization of cerebrospinal fluid collection and biobanking

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 73, 期 22, 页码 1914-1922

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181c47cc2

关键词

-

资金

  1. EMD Serono, Inc.
  2. NIH/NEI [R03EY014573]
  3. National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  4. Karolinska Institutet
  5. Torsten and Ragnar Soderberg Foundation
  6. Harvard Foundation
  7. Swedish Medical Research Council
  8. Sanofi-aventis
  9. Merck Serono
  10. Novartis
  11. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
  12. Italian Ministry of Health
  13. Italian Ministry of Research and Education
  14. Italian Foundation for Multiple Sclerosis
  15. Schering-Plough Corp.
  16. Biogen Idec
  17. Leeds Teaching Hospitals Special trustees
  18. Bayer Schering Pharma
  19. Catholic University of Louvain
  20. University of Ulm
  21. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R03EY014573] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a long history of research into body fluid biomarkers in neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory diseases. However, only a few biomarkers in CSF are being used in clinical practice. One of the most critical factors in CSF biomarker research is the inadequate powering of studies because of the lack of sufficient samples that can be obtained in single-center studies. Therefore, collaboration between investigators is needed to establish large biobanks of well-defined samples. Standardized protocols for biobanking are a prerequisite to ensure that the statistical power gained by increasing the numbers of CSF samples is not compromised by preanalytical factors. Here, a consensus report on recommendations for CSF collection and biobanking is presented, formed by the BioMS-eu network for CSF biomarker research in multiple sclerosis. We focus on CSF collection procedures, preanalytical factors, and high-quality clinical and paraclinical information. The biobanking protocols are applicable for CSF biobanks for research targeting any neurologic disease. Neurology (R) 2009; 73: 1914-1922

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据