ReviewInternational journal of nephrology and renovascular disease2016
Biomarkers in critical illness: have we made progress?
Review in International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinicopathological and Prognostic Significance of PRAME Overexpression in Human Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.BioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- MicroRNA Profiles in Critically Ill Patients.Current medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Assessment of Regional Perfusion and Organ Function: Less and Non-invasive Techniques.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Review
- Increased DCLK1 correlates with the malignant status and poor outcome in malignant tumors: a meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Comparison of serum procalcitonin level with erythrocytes sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, and blood culture in the diagnosis of bacterial infections in patients hospitalized in Motahhari hospital of Urmia (2016).Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & researchArticle
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
Biomarkers have emerged as exemplary key players in translational medicine. Many have been assessed for timely recognition, early treatment, and adequate follow-up for a variety of pathologies. Biomarker sensitivity has improved considerably over the last years but specificity remains poor, in particular when two "marker-sensitive" conditions overlap in one patient. Biomarker research holds an enormous potential for diagnostic and prognostic purposes in postoperative and critically ill patients who present varying degrees of inflammation, infection, and concomitant (sub)acute organ dysfunction or failure. Despite a remarkable progress in development and testing, biomarkers are not yet ready for routine use at the bedside.
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.