Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31316555›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2019

Epigenetic IVD Tests for Personalized Precision Medicine in Cancer.

Jesús Beltrán-García, Rebeca Osca-Verdegal, Salvador Mena-Mollá, José Luis García-Giménez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. A DNA methylation assay (MPap) using self-collected tampon versus cytology collection swab for endometrial cancer detection.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. The role of epigenetics in cancer: From pathways to the clinic.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jesús Beltrán-GarcíaCenter for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Institute of Health Carlos III, Valencia, Spain.
Rebeca Osca-VerdegalINCLIVA Biomedical Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Salvador Mena-MolláDepartment of Physiology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universitat de València (UV), Valencia, Spain.
José Luis García-GiménezCenter for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Institute of Health Carlos III, Valencia, Spain.
Instituto de Salud Carlos III · ESCentre for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases · ESUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epigenetic alterations play a key role in the initiation and progression of cancer. Therefore, it is possible to use epigenetic marks as biomarkers for predictive and precision medicine in cancer. Precision medicine is poised to impact clinical practice, patients, and healthcare systems. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the epigenetic testing landscape in cancer by examining commercially available epigenetic-based

Indexed as

cfDNAcirculating nucleosomesDNA methylationepigenetic biomarkerIn Vitro Diagnostic (IVD)miRNAprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID31316555
PMCPMC6611494
OpenAlexW2951737887

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.