ReviewCurrent oncology reports2019
Cancer Biomarkers for Integrative Oncology.
Review in Current oncology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A critical assessment of Traditional Chinese Medicine databases as a source for drug discovery.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Immunohistochemical Expression Levels of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, Cyclooxygenase-2, and Ki-67 in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Editorial: Volume II: Tumor microenvironment in cancer hallmarks and therapeutics.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Article
- NPCDR: natural product-based drug combination and its disease-specific molecular regulation.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Pre- and Post-harvest Factors Affecting Glucosinolate Content in Broccoli.Frontiers in nutrition · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThere has been an increasing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches to treat cancer. It is therefore relevant and timely to determine if CAM biomarkers can be identified and developed to guide cancer diagnosis and treatment. Herein, we review the status of cancer biomarkers in CAM research and treatment to stimulate further research in this area. RECENT
findingsStudies on promising anti-cancer natural products, such as PHY906, honokiol, bryostatin-1, and sulforaphane have demonstrated the existence of potential cancer biomarker(s). Additional studies are required to further develop and ultimately validate these biomarkers that can predict clinical activity of the anti-cancer natural products used alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic agents. A systematic approach is needed to identify and develop CAM treatment associated biomarkers and to define their role in facilitating clinical decision-making. The expectation is to use these biomarkers in determining potential options for CAM treatment, examining treatment effects and toxicity and/or clinical efficacy in patients with cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.