ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2003
[Molecular diagnostics of prostate cancer].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although a number of studies have identified molecular markers for prostate cancer, their clinical utility remains mainly unclear. Markers, which allow improved determination of the biological aggressiveness of individual prostate cancers, may help to optimize therapeutic management of this heterogeneous tumor type. Here, a subset of molecular markers, which are intensively discussed in the literature or which are supposed to gain clinical utility in the future, are described in more detail. For a better survey, the markers are divided into (a) susceptibility markers, (b) malignancy markers, and (c) aggressiveness markers. The number of markers described as well as the inconsistency across studies in assessing their clinical utility reflect the heterogeneity of prostate cancer also on a genetic level so that it is unlikely that a single marker will gain clinical relevance. Future research must include systematic analysis of the clinical utility of not only single markers but rather of marker profiles in appropriate studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12750799What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.