Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30833816›Full record

ReviewBiomarkers in cancer2019

Urine Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer - Are We There Yet?

Kelly Grayson, Ebony Gregory, Ghazala Khan, Barbara-Ann Guinn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biomarkers in cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Kelly GraysonDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Ebony GregoryDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Ghazala KhanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Barbara-Ann GuinnDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0639-4541

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ovarian cancer affects around 7500 women in the United Kingdom every year. Despite this, there is no effective screening strategy or standard treatment for ovarian cancer. If diagnosed during stage I, ovarian cancer has a 90% 5-year survival rate; however, there is usually a masking of symptoms which leads to an often late-stage diagnosis and correspondingly poor survival rate. Current diagnostic methods are invasive and consist of a pelvic examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and blood tests to detect cancer antigen 125 (CA125). Unfortunately, surgery is often still required to make a positive diagnosis. To address the need for accurate, specific, and non-invasive diagnostic methods, there has been an increased interest in biomarkers identified through non-invasive tests as tools for the earlier diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Although most studies have focused on the identification of biomarkers in blood, the ease of availability of urine and the high patient compliance rates suggest that it could provide a promising resource for the screening of patients for ovarian cancer.

Indexed as

Biomarkerdiagnosisearly detectionovarian cancerurine

Identifiers

PMID30833816
PMCPMC6393943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.