Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28659713›Full record

ReviewBiomarker insights2017

Making Meaningful Clinical Use of Biomarkers.

Matthew J Selleck, Maheswari Senthil, Nathan R Wall

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biomarker insights, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of trials currently investigating therapeutic modalities for post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and registered on WHO International Clinical Trials Platform.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Matthew J SelleckDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Maheswari SenthilDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Nathan R WallDivision of Biochemistry, Department of Basic Sciences and Center for Health Disparities & Molecular Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review discusses the current state of biomarker discovery for the purposes of diagnostics and therapeutic monitoring. We underscore relevant challenges that have defined the gap between biomarker discovery and meaningful clinical use. We highlight recent advancements in and propose a way to think about future biomarker development.

Indexed as

Biomarkersdiagnosticsliquid biopsy

Identifiers

PMID28659713
PMCPMC5479428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.