Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29713393›Full record

ReviewClinical epigenetics2018

Circulating microRNAs as potential cancer biomarkers: the advantage and disadvantage.

Hao Wang, Ran Peng, Junjie Wang, Zelian Qin, Lixiang Xue

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical epigenetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 272 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
272citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

272 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

212 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

5 authors.

Hao Wang1Medical Research Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ran Peng2Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Junjie Wang2Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zelian Qin1Medical Research Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lixiang Xue1Medical Research Center, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MicroRNAs are endogenous single-stranded non-coding small RNA molecules that can be secreted into the circulation and exist stably. They usually exhibit aberrant expression under different physiological and pathological conditions. Recently, differentially expressed circulating microRNAs were focused on as potential biomarkers for cancer screening. We herein review the role of circulating microRNAs for cancer diagnosis, tumor subtype classification, chemo- or radio-resistance monitoring, and outcome prognosis. Moreover, circulating microRNAs still have several issues hindering their reliability for the practical clinical application. Future studies need to elucidate further potential application of circulating microRNAs as specific and sensitive markers for clinical diagnosis or prognosis in cancers.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCirculating MicroRNADNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansNeoplasmsPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorCirculating MicroRNABiomarkerCancerCirculating microRNADiagnosisPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID29713393
PMCPMC5913875

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.