Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29108860›Full record

ReviewAdvanced drug delivery reviews2017

Fibrosis imaging: Current concepts and future directions.

Maike Baues, Anshuman Dasgupta, Josef Ehling, Jai Prakash, Peter Boor, Frank Tacke, Fabian Kiessling, Twan Lammers

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maike BauesDepartment of Nanomedicines and Theranostics, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Anshuman DasguptaDepartment of Nanomedicines and Theranostics, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Josef EhlingDepartment of Nanomedicines and Theranostics, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Jai PrakashDepartment of Targeted Therapeutics, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
Peter BoorDepartment of Nephrology and Institute of Pathology, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Frank TackeDepartment of Medicine III, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Fabian KiesslingDepartment of Nanomedicines and Theranostics, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Twan LammersDepartment of Nanomedicines and Theranostics, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen and Helmholtz Institute for Biomedical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52074 Aachen, Germany; Department of Targeted Therapeutics, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands; Department of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: tlammers@ukaachen.de.
Universitätsklinikum Aachen · DERWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

European Research Council 309495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fibrosis plays an important role in many different pathologies. It results from tissue injury, chronic inflammation, autoimmune reactions and genetic alterations, and it is characterized by the excessive deposition of extracellular matrix components. Biopsies are routinely employed for fibrosis diagnosis, but they suffer from several drawbacks, including their invasive nature, sampling variability and limited spatial information. To overcome these limitations, multiple different imaging tools and technologies have been evaluated over the years, including X-ray imaging, computed tomography (CT), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). These modalities can provide anatomical, functional and molecular imaging information which is useful for fibrosis diagnosis and staging, and they may also hold potential for the longitudinal assessment of therapy responses. Here, we summarize the use of non-invasive imaging techniques for monitoring fibrosis in systemic autoimmune diseases, in parenchymal organs (such as liver, kidney, lung and heart), and in desmoplastic cancers. We also discuss how imaging biomarkers can be integrated in (pre-) clinical research to individualize and improve anti-fibrotic therapies.

Indexed as

AnimalsAutoimmune DiseasesFibrosisHumansKidney DiseasesLiver DiseasesLung DiseasesNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29108860
PMCPMC6130769
OpenAlexW2769673906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.