Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29218253›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of cancer research2017

Clinical applications of urinary cell-free DNA in cancer: current insights and promising future.

Tian Lu, Jinming Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of cancer research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
–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

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Practical, Noninvasive Urine Collection Method for Mice for Large Cohort Preclinical Studies.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. HypermethylatedFrontiers in oncology · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Tian LuNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of GerontologyBeijing, People's Republic of China.
Jinming LiNational Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of GerontologyBeijing, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid biopsy is gaining significant attention as a tool for unveiling the molecular landscape of tumor and holds great promise for individualized medicine for cancer. Cell-free DNA serves as an extremely important component of liquid biopsy for cancer, and cell-free DNA in urine is even promising due to the remarkable advantage of urine as an ultra-noninvasive sample source over tissue and blood. Compared with the widely studied cell-free DNA in blood, less is known about the role of urinary cell-free DNA. Urinary cell-free DNA has the ability to give comprehensive and crucial information on cancer as it carries genetic messages from cells shedding directly into urine as well as transporting from circulation. As an indispensable component of liquid biopsy, urinary cell-free DNA is believed to have the potential of being a useful and ultra-noninvasive tool for cancer screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of cancer progression and therapeutic effect. In this review, we provide the current insights into the clinical applications of urinary cell-free DNA in cancer. We also introduce the basic biological significance and some technical issues in the detection of urinary cell-free DNA.

Indexed as

cancerclinical applicationLiquid biopsyurinary cell-free DNA

Identifiers

PMID29218253
PMCPMC5714758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.