Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29682327›Full record

ReviewFuture science OA2018

Kinetics of circulating cell-free DNA for biomedical applications: critical appraisal of the literature.

Sonia Khier, Laura Lohan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future science OA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing 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

77 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Liquid Biopsy: The Challenges of a Revolutionary Approach in Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Liquid Biopsy in B and T Cell Lymphomas: From Bench to Bedside.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 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

2 authors.

Sonia KhierDepartment of Pharmacokinetics, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Laura LohanDepartment of Pharmacokinetics, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circulating cell-free DNA is considered as one of the major breakthroughs in the field of innovative diagnosis, used as a liquid biopsy. The kinetic parameters of a biomarker are mandatory to assess its usefulness as a diagnostic tool. Obtaining precise mathematical values for the kinetic parameters (e.g., half-life) is then crucial because it could be used for therapeutic monitoring as a prognostic factor. However, little is known about the intrinsic properties of circulating cell-free DNA, more especially, its kinetic properties within the organism. We summarized the basic principles that may affect the kinetics of circulating cell-free DNA within the organism in the light of biological and clinical evidence. We also meta-analyzed the reported data in the literature and the methodologies that have been used to study the kinetic parameters of human circulating cell-free DNA

Indexed as

biomarkerscell-free DNAhalf-lifepersonalized medicinepharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID29682327
PMCPMC5905581

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.