Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33934252›Full record

ReviewNano convergence2021

Nanotechnology in emerging liquid biopsy applications.

Despina P Kalogianni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nano convergence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Highly Sensitive TiOBiosensors · 2022
    Article
  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

1 author.

Despina P KalogianniDepartment of Chemistry, University of Patras, Rio, 26504, Patras, Greece. kalogian@upatras.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9638-8713

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid biopsy is considered as the most attractive alternative to traditional tissue biopsies. The major advantages of this approach lie in the non-invasive procedure, the rapidness of sample collection and the potential for early cancer diagnosis and real-time monitoring of the disease and the treatment response. Nanotechnology has dynamically emerged in a wide range of applications in the field of liquid biopsy. The benefits of using nanomaterials for biosensing include high sensitivity and detectability, simplicity in many cases, rapid analysis, the low cost of the analysis and the potential for portability and personalized medicine. The present paper reports on the nanomaterial-based methods and biosensors that have been developed for liquid biopsy applications. Most of the nanomaterials used exhibit great analytical performance; moreover, extremely low limits of detection have been achieved for all studied targets. This review will provide scientists with a comprehensive overview of all the nanomaterials and techniques that have been developed for liquid biopsy applications. A comparison of the developed methods in terms of detectability, dynamic range, time-length of the analysis and multiplicity, is also provided.

Indexed as

Carbon dotsCirculating tumor cellsCirculating tumor DNAExosomesGOGold nanoparticlesGraphene oxideMiRNANanomaterialsNanoparticlesQuantum dots

Identifiers

PMID33934252
PMCPMC8088419

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.