Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22680923›Full record

ReviewCurrent medicinal chemistry2012

Molecular diagnostic trends in urological cancer: biomarkers for non-invasive diagnosis.

V Urquidi, C J Rosser, S Goodison

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current medicinal chemistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer.World journal of urology · 2018
    Review
  18. Promoter methylation analysis ofOncoTargets and therapy · 2018
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

V UrquidiCancer Research Institute, MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL 32827, USA.
C J Rosser
S Goodison
Orlando Regional Medical Center · US

Funding

Towards a non-invasive molecular test for bladder cancerR01CA116161 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI GOODISON, STEVE · 2007 to 2019
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA116161
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The early detection of urological cancers is pivotal for successful patient treatment and management. The development of molecular assays that can diagnose disease accurately, or that can augment current methods of evaluation, would be a significant advance. Ideally, such molecular assays would be applicable to non-invasively obtained body fluids, enabling not only diagnosis of at risk patients, but also asymptomatic screening, monitoring disease recurrence and response to treatment. The advent of advanced proteomics and genomics technologies and associated bioinformatics development is bringing these goals into focus. In this article we will discuss the promise of biomarkers in urinalysis for the detection and clinical evaluation of the major urological cancers, including bladder, kidney and prostate. The development of urine-based tests to detect urological cancers would be of tremendous benefit to both patients and the healthcare system.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDNAHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMetabolomicsPathology, MolecularPromoter Regions, GeneticProstatic NeoplasmsRNAUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsBiomarkersDNARNA

Identifiers

PMID22680923
PMCPMC3428062
OpenAlexW2023864418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.