Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914865›Full record

ArticleClinical chemistry2018

A Simple and Novel Fecal Biomarker for Colorectal Cancer: Ratio of

Songhe Guo, Linfang Li, Banglao Xu, Manghui Li, Qiuyao Zeng, Han Xiao, Ying Xue, Yixian Wu, Yidan Wang, Wanli Liu and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical chemistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 172 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. IsGut microbes · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Songhe GuoDepartment of Microbial and Biochemical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Linfang LiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Banglao XuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Guangzhou First Municipal People's Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Manghui LiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, China.
Qiuyao ZengDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Han XiaoDepartment of Microbial and Biochemical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ying XueDepartment of Microbial and Biochemical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yixian WuDepartment of Microbial and Biochemical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yidan WangDepartment of Biotechnology, School of McCormick Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Wanli LiuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China; zhangge@mail.sysu.edu.cn liuwl@sysucc.org.cn.
Ge ZhangDepartment of Microbial and Biochemical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China; zhangge@mail.sysu.edu.cn liuwl@sysucc.org.cn.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNGuangzhou First People's Hospital · CNNorthwestern University · USShanxi Medical University · CNState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGut microbial dysbiosis contributes to the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). We evaluated the utility of fecal bacterial biomarker candidates identified by our 16S rDNA sequencing analysis for CRC diagnosis.

methodsWe measured the relative abundance of

resultsThe microbial ratio of

conclusionsThis study found that

Indexed as

BiomarkersColorectal NeoplasmsDNA, RibosomalFecesFusobacterium nucleatumGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionProbioticsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBiomarkersDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID29914865
OpenAlexW2808196482

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.