Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34502023›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2021

Properties and Application of Cell-Free DNA as a Clinical Biomarker.

Felipe Silva de Miranda, Valério Garrone Barauna, Leandro Dos Santos, Gustavo Costa, Paula Frizera Vassallo, Luciene Cristina Gastalho Campos

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Felipe Silva de MirandaPost Graduation Program in Biology and Biotechnology of Microorganisms, State University of Santa Cruz, Ilhéus 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9194-1436
Valério Garrone BaraunaPost Graduation Program in Health Sciences, State University of Santa Cruz, Ilhéus 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2832-0922
Leandro Dos SantosAcademic Unit of Serra Talhada, Rural Federal University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada 56909-535, Pernambuco, Brazil.
Gustavo CostaPost Graduation Program in Physiological Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória 29075-910, Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Paula Frizera VassalloPost Graduation Program in Physiological Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória 29075-910, Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Luciene Cristina Gastalho CamposPost Graduation Program in Biology and Biotechnology of Microorganisms, State University of Santa Cruz, Ilhéus 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5962-661X
Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz · BRUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco · BRUniversidade Federal do Espírito Santo · BR

Funding

CNPq #401870/2020-0FAPES #151/2020FAPESB SUS0046/2018Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC) 073.11012.2019.0016578-57
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarkers are valuable tools in clinical practice. In 2001, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) standardized the definition of a biomarker as a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacological responses to a therapeutic intervention. A biomarker has clinical relevance when it presents precision, standardization and reproducibility, suitability to the patient, straightforward interpretation by clinicians, and high sensitivity and/or specificity by the parameter it proposes to identify. Thus, serum biomarkers should have advantages related to the simplicity of the procedures and to the fact that venous blood collection is commonplace in clinical practice. We described the potentiality of cfDNA as a general clinical biomarker and focused on endothelial dysfunction. Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) refers to extracellular DNA present in body fluid that may be derived from both normal and diseased cells. An increasing number of studies demonstrate the potential use of cfDNA as a noninvasive biomarker to determine physiologic and pathologic conditions. However, although still scarce, increasing evidence has been reported regarding using cfDNA in cardiovascular diseases. Here, we have reviewed the history of cfDNA, its source, molecular features, and release mechanism. We also show recent studies that have investigated cfDNA as a possible marker of endothelial damage in clinical settings. In the cardiovascular system, the studies are quite new, and although interesting, stronger evidence is still needed. However, some drawbacks in cfDNA methodologies should be overcome before its recommendation as a biomarker in the clinical setting.

Indexed as

AgingBiomarkersCell-Free Nucleic AcidsDiabetes MellitusEndothelium, VascularHumansHypertensionSedentary BehaviorSmokingBiomarkersCell-Free Nucleic AcidsbiomarkercfDNAcirculating nucleotideendothelial dysfunctionvascular damage

Identifiers

PMID34502023
PMCPMC8431421
OpenAlexW3193452811

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.