ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2015
Point-of-care testing in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers: current technology and future directions.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explorative Detection of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) in Exhaled Breath of Patients With Breast Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Microfluidic Gastrointestinal Cell Culture Technologies-Improvements in the Past Decade.Biosensors · 2024Review
- Article
- Biomarkers for detecting colorectal cancer non-invasively: DNA, RNA or proteins?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020Review
- Emerging Designs of Electronic Devices in Biomedicine.Micromachines · 2020Review
- Faecal Occult Blood Point-of-Care Tests.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2018Review
- Treatment for unresectable or metastatic oesophageal cancer: current evidence and trends.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018Review
- Omics-based molecular techniques in oral pathology centred cancer: prospect and challenges in Africa.Cancer cell international · 2017Review
- Novel understanding of ABC transporters ABCB1/MDR/P-glycoprotein, ABCC2/MRP2, and ABCG2/BCRP in colorectal pathophysiology.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Fecal DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening: Molecular targets and perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Point-of-care (POC) tests enable rapid results and are well established in medical practice. Recent advances in analytical techniques have led to a new generation of POC devices that will alter gastrointestinal diagnostic pathways. This review aims to identify current and new technologies for the POC diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer. A structured search of the Embase and Medline databases was performed. Papers reporting diagnostic tests for gastrointestinal cancer available as a POC device or containing a description of feasibility for POC application were included. Studies recovered were heterogeneous and therefore results are presented as a narrative review. Six diagnostic methods were identified (fecal occult blood, fecal proteins, volatile organic compounds, pyruvate kinase isoenzyme type M2, tumour markers and DNA analysis). Fecal occult blood testing has a reported sensitivity of 66%-85% and specificity greater than 95%. The others are at a range of development and clinical application. POC devices have a proven role in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer. Barriers to their implementation exist and the transition from experimental to clinical medicine is currently slow. New technologies demonstrate potential to provide accurate POC tests and an ability to diagnose gastrointestinal cancer at an early stage with improved clinical outcome and survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.