BRIF parameters

We checked the notes from our conference meeting for a second round, and these were our conclusions. Hope it helps:
Since the final aim of the project is to establish the impact of the service provided by biobanks and databases to the scientific community, we should focus on research indicators. Therefore, we think that economic and health impact indicators might be indirect parameters. Not all results from research are translational to health; a good example would be a study that improves our knowledge of a disease or a therapeutic target but does not improve health directly.
We think that biobanks or databases who don’t take into account requests from the scientific community have very limited value for research; even if these store many samples or data.
On the other hand, ensured quality of bio-resources provides optimal and real productivity would be, as the results obtained with these bio-resources are feasible. Quality Assurance is a requirement for the impact to be positive.
At this point, it is essential to state some of these ideas:
1. Quality assurance in key processes: BR Reception, Preparation, Preservation, Availability.
2. Results obtained from research make it possible to update associated data. A further use of the resource provides added value to bio-rsources for research.
3. The clinical or biological information associated with samples should meet researchers’ requirements.
Finally, although different entities might be able to calculate the BRIF; the first analysis must be carried out by the biobank or DB itself; then an independent entity can verify this decision through an evaluation.

Kind Regards,

HIV HGM Spanish BioBank

Dear friends,
I finally contact you and I apologize for the delay. I hope that the following notes can help us in proceeding with the BRIF subgroup on parameters. I have analysed the documents that are available in the web site and I have contacted Robert, Laurence and Anne for further suggestions on how to proceed with our subgroup.

Here follow some proposals that I submit to you for further discussion:

1. we have a long list of parameters: what if we assign a value, a score to each of them, so that we distinguish the most important for the group?
Based on a suggestion of Anne, I have prepared a very preliminary draft for a table that I ask you to comment and amend. I started from the document BRIF_parameters_notes_1May2011 that Robert sent us following the web conference and subsequent discussion. I tried not to modify the document, I only removed some explanatory text and some comments.
For each parameter I have included different ways of classifying them, based on different features, mostly suggested by Anne. In my view, column B should be a number (from 1 to 10?), the other columns should be X / null (relevant / irrelevant).
Once we have given a score to each parameter we will be able to better apply them to the BRIF concept and measure how useful they are for the metrics of BRIF.

2. should we "test" the list through a survey (Robert has mentioned this idea when I called him)?
I think that this can be a further step, and when we have classified the parameters (see point 1.) we can arrange a “community consultation” to see whether we miss important features. This could be done in the biobank community at a National level by the participants in the group.

3. I followed a very interesting course on biowikis, and in my institute we are developing (starting from our Cell Line Data Base) a biowiki on established cell lines. In fact, the "impact" of this kind of tools could become really relevant in the future. Should we include them among the tools to be considered?

These three points, and all those that will come from the group in the next days, could be possible topics for a discussion with those that will attend the Marseille conference next week. For now, I propose to meet at the coffee break on Wednesday afternoon and I ask Robert if he can suggest a meeting point.

I am also posting the documents in the website

My best to all of you

Barbara