SynthesisScientific reports2015
The Assessment of the Readiness of Molecular Biomarker-Based Mobile Health Technologies for Healthcare Applications.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurses' perspectives on using mobile health applications in southeastern Iran: Awareness, attitude, and obstacles.PloS one · 2025Article
- Silver-Assembled Silica Nanoparticles in Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Visual Inspection of Prostate-Specific Antigen.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Diagnostic performance of several biomarkers for identification of cases of non-communicable diseases among Central Africans.African health sciences · 2018Article
- Sub-nanoliter, real-time flow monitoring in microfluidic chips using a portable device and smartphone.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Evolution of Complex Target SELEX to Identify Aptamers against Mammalian Cell-Surface Antigens.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Application of flat panel OLED display technology for the point-of-care detection of circulating cancer biomarkers.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile health technologies to detect physiological and simple-analyte biomarkers have been explored for the improvement and cost-reduction of healthcare services, some of which have been endorsed by the US FDA. Advancements in the investigations of non-invasive and minimally-invasive molecular biomarkers and biomarker candidates and the development of portable biomarker detection technologies have fuelled great interests in these new technologies for mhealth applications. But apart from the development of more portable biomarker detection technologies, key questions need to be answered and resolved regarding to the relevance, coverage, and performance of these technologies and the big data management issues arising from their wide spread applications. In this work, we analyzed the newly emerging portable biomarker detection technologies, the 664 non-invasive molecular biomarkers and the 592 potential minimally-invasive blood molecular biomarkers, focusing on their detection capability, affordability, relevance, and coverage. Our analysis suggests that a substantial percentage of these biomarkers together with the new technologies can be potentially used for a variety of disease conditions in mhealth applications. We further propose a new strategy for reducing the workload in the processing and analysis of the big data arising from widespread use of mhealth products, and discuss potential issues of implementing this strategy.
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.