Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25337481›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science2014

Academic College of Emergency Experts in India's INDO-US Joint Working Group and OPUS12 Foundation Consensus Statement on Creating A Coordinated, Multi-Disciplinary, Patient-Centered, Global Point-of-Care Biomarker Discovery Network.

Stanislaw P Stawicki, Jill C Stoltzfus, Praveen Aggarwal, Sanjeev Bhoi, Shashi Bhatt, O P Kalra, Ashish Bhalla, Brian A Hoey, Sagar C Galwankar, Lorenzo Paladino and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Advancing clinician-performed sonography in the twenty-first century: building on the rich legacy of the twentieth century pioneers.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2016
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Stanislaw P StawickiDepartment of Research and Innovation, Research Institute, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania ; Department of Research and Innovation, OPUS 12 Foundation Global, Columbus, USA.
Jill C StoltzfusDepartment of Research and Innovation, Research Institute, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania ; Department of Research and Innovation, Research Institute, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Praveen AggarwalDepartment of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Sanjeev BhoiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Shashi BhattDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Toledo, College of Medicine, Toledo, USA.
O P KalraDepartment of Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Ashish BhallaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Brian A HoeyDepartment of Research and Innovation, OPUS 12 Foundation Global, Columbus, USA ; Department of Surgery, St Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Sagar C GalwankarDepartment of Research and Innovation, OPUS 12 Foundation Global, Columbus, USA ; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida and Winter Haven Hospital, Florida, USA.
Lorenzo PaladinoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Long Island College Hospital, New York, USA.
Thomas J PapadimosDepartment of Research and Innovation, OPUS 12 Foundation Global, Columbus, USA ; Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarker science brings great promise to clinical medicine. This is especially true in the era of technology miniaturization, rapid dissemination of knowledge, and point-of-care (POC) implementation of novel diagnostics. Despite this tremendous progress, the journey from a candidate biomarker to a scientifically validated biomarker continues to be an arduous one. In addition to substantial financial resources, biomarker research requires considerable expertise and a multidisciplinary approach. Investigational designs must also be taken into account, with the randomized controlled trial remaining the "gold standard". The authors present a condensed overview of biomarker science and associated investigational methods, followed by specific examples from clinical areas where biomarker development and/or implementation resulted in tangible enhancements in patient care. This manuscript also serves as a call to arms for the establishment of a truly global, well-coordinated infrastructure dedicated to biomarker research and development, with focus on delivery of the latest discoveries directly to the patient via point-of-care technology.

Indexed as

Biomarker researchglobal approachpatient-centered approachpoint-of-care testing

Identifiers

PMID25337481
PMCPMC4200545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.