Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29977481›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2018

ctDNA and CTCs in Liquid Biopsy - Current Status and Where We Need to Progress.

Martin H D Neumann, Sebastian Bender, Thomas Krahn, Thomas Schlange

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

127 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Liquid biopsies in cancer.Molecular biomedicine · 2025
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

67 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

4 authors.

Martin H D NeumannBayer AG, Pharmaceutical Division, Biomarker Research, Wuppertal, Germany.
Sebastian BenderBayer AG, Pharmaceutical Division, Translational Assay Technology, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas KrahnBayer AG, Pharmaceutical Division, Biomarker Research, Wuppertal, Germany.
Thomas SchlangeBayer AG, Pharmaceutical Division, Biomarker Research, Wuppertal, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We discuss the current status of liquid biopsy and its advantages and challenges with a focus on pre-analytical sample handling, technologies and workflows. The potential of circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA is pointed out and an overview of corresponding technologies is given.

Indexed as

Circulating tumor cellsCirculating tumor DNALiquid biopsyPre-analytical handlingTechnology overview

Identifiers

PMID29977481
PMCPMC6024152

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.