Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29565457›Full record

ReviewOncology reports2018

Improving diagnosis, prognosis and prediction by using biomarkers in CRC patients (Review).

Taxiarchis Konstantinos Nikolouzakis, Loukia Vassilopoulou, Persefoni Fragkiadaki, Theodoros Mariolis Sapsakos, Georgios Z Papadakis, Demetrios A Spandidos, Aristides M Tsatsakis, John Tsiaoussis

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Oncology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Association of nutraceutical supplements with longer telomere length.International journal of molecular medicine · 2019
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

13 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 1 country.

Taxiarchis Konstantinos NikolouzakisLaboratory of Anatomy‑Histology‑Embryology, Medical School, University of Crete, 71110 Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Loukia VassilopoulouLaboratory of Forensic Sciences and Toxicology, Medical School, University of Crete, 71409 Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Persefoni FragkiadakiLaboratory of Forensic Sciences and Toxicology, Medical School, University of Crete, 71409 Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Theodoros Mariolis SapsakosLaboratory of Anatomy and Histology, Nursing School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece.
Georgios Z PapadakisFoundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH), Institute of Computer Sciences (ICS), Computational Biomedicine Laboratory (CBML), 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Demetrios A SpandidosLaboratory of Clinical Virology, Medical School, University of Crete, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Aristides M TsatsakisLaboratory of Forensic Sciences and Toxicology, Medical School, University of Crete, 71409 Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
John TsiaoussisLaboratory of Anatomy‑Histology‑Embryology, Medical School, University of Crete, 71110 Heraklion, Greece.
University of Crete · GRFoundation for Research and Technology Hellas · GRNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers. In fact, it is placed in the third place among the most diagnosed cancer in men, after lung and prostate cancer, and in the second one for the most diagnosed cancer in women, following breast cancer. Moreover, its high mortality rates classifies it among the leading causes of cancer‑related death worldwide. Thus, in order to help clinicians to optimize their practice, it is crucial to introduce more effective tools that will improve not only early diagnosis, but also prediction of the most likely progression of the disease and response to chemotherapy. In that way, they will be able to decrease both morbidity and mortality of their patients. In accordance with that, colon cancer research has described numerous biomarkers for diagnostic, prognostic and predictive purposes that either alone or as part of a panel would help improve patient's clinical management. This review aims to describe the most accepted biomarkers among those proposed for use in CRC divided based on the clinical specimen that is examined (tissue, faeces or blood) along with their restrictions. Lastly, new insight in CRC monitoring will be discussed presenting promising emerging biomarkers (telomerase activity, telomere length and micronuclei frequency).

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionEarly Detection of CancerHumansMicronuclei, Chromosome-DefectivePrognosisTelomeraseTelomere HomeostasisBiomarkers, TumorTelomerase

Identifiers

PMID29565457
PMCPMC5983921
OpenAlexW2793725491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.