Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29214162›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2017

Current Tissue Molecular Markers in Colorectal Cancer: A Literature Review.

Gaia Peluso, Paola Incollingo, Armando Calogero, Vincenzo Tammaro, Niccolò Rupealta, Gaetano Chiacchio, Maria Laura Sandoval Sotelo, Gianluca Minieri, Antonio Pisani, Eleonora Riccio and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Cytotoxic Effect ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  9. Molecular Oncology in Management of Colorectal Cancer.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Biomolecules · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gaia PelusoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4512-4579
Paola IncollingoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5116-1451
Armando CalogeroDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo TammaroDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Niccolò RupealtaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Gaetano ChiacchioDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Maria Laura Sandoval SoteloDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Gianluca MinieriDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Antonio PisaniDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Eleonora RiccioDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5379-1104
Massimo SabbatiniDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1339-9228
Umberto Marcello BracaleDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Concetta Anna DodaroDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Nicola CarlomagnoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Science, University of Naples Federico II, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9837-5809
University of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most spread neoplasia types all around the world, especially in western areas. It evolves from precancerous lesions and adenomatous polyps, through successive genetic and epigenetic mutations. Numerous risk factors intervene in its development and they are either environmental or genetic. AIM OF THE REVIEW: Alongside common screening techniques, such as fecal screening tests, endoscopic evaluation, and CT-colonography, we have identified the most important and useful biomarkers and we have analyzed their role in the diagnosis, prevention, and prognosis of CRC.

conclusionBiomarkers can become an important tool in the diagnostic and therapeutic process for CRC. But further studies are needed to identify a noninvasive, cost-effective, and highly sensible and specific screening test for their detection and to standardize their use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorColonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansMutationPrognosisRisk FactorsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID29214162
PMCPMC5682052
OpenAlexW2767052825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.