Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34680596›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2021

Liquid Biopsy as a Tool for the Characterisation and Early Detection of the Field Cancerization Effect in Patients with Oral Cavity Carcinoma.

Elisabeth Pérez-Ruiz, Vanesa Gutiérrez, Marta Muñoz, Javier Oliver, Marta Sánchez, Laura Gálvez-Carvajal, Antonio Rueda-Domínguez, Isabel Barragán

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Circulating biomarkers in oral cancer: Unravelling the mystery.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Elisabeth Pérez-RuizUnidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Oncology Department, Institute of Biomedical Investigation of Malaga (IBIMA), Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Malaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7204-0800
Vanesa GutiérrezUnidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Oncology Department, Institute of Biomedical Investigation of Malaga (IBIMA), Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Malaga, Spain.
Marta MuñozUnidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Oncology Department, Institute of Biomedical Investigation of Malaga (IBIMA), Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Malaga, Spain.
Javier OliverResearcher Unit, Unidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Institute of Biomedical Investigation of Malaga (IBIMA), Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Malaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8073-4711
Marta SánchezMaxillofacial Surgery Department, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, 29010 Málaga, Spain.
Laura Gálvez-CarvajalUnidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Oncology Department, Institute of Biomedical Investigation of Malaga (IBIMA), Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Malaga, Spain.
Antonio Rueda-DomínguezUnidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Oncology Department, Institute of Biomedical Investigation of Malaga (IBIMA), Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Malaga, Spain.
Isabel BarragánResearcher Unit, Unidad de Gestión Clínica Intercentros de Oncología Médica, Institute of Biomedical Investigation of Malaga (IBIMA), Hospitales Universitarios Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, 29010 Malaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8586-6502
Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga · ESHospital Regional Universitario de Málaga · ESKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) constitutes approximately 25% of all head and neck cancer, for which the consumption of tobacco and alcohol are the main associated risk factors. The field cancerization effect of OSCC is one of the main reasons for the poor survival rates associated with this disease. Despite some advances, its ccharacterization and early diagnosis continue to challenge modern oncology, and the goal of improving the prognosis remains to be achieved. Among new early diagnostic tools for OSCC that have been proposed, liquid biopsy appears to be an ideal candidate, as studies have shown that the analysis of blood and saliva provides promising data for the early detection of relapses or second tumours.

Indexed as

field cancerizationliquid biopsyoral cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID34680596
PMCPMC8533108
OpenAlexW3206183070

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.