ReviewBiomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia2022
Which bacterial toxins are worthy of validation as markers in colorectal cancer screening? A critical review.
Review in Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging role of human microbiome in cancer development and response to therapy: special focus on intestinal microflora.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Review
- Phenotypicand Genotypic Characterization of Clinical Isolates of Intracellular Adherent-InvasiveFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Appropriate screening of early asymptomatic cases can reduce the disease burden and mortality rate of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC) significantly. Currently, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is able to detect up to 80% of asymptomatic cases in the population aged 50+. Therefore, there is still a demand for new screening tests that would complement FOBT, mainly by detecting at least a part of the FOBT-negative CRC and adenoma cases, or possibly by identifying person at increased risk of sporadic CRC in order to offer them tailored follow-up. Among the potential markers studied, our knowledge has advanced at most in toxigenic gram-negative bacteria. In this review, we assess their potential critically and recommend those best suited for prospective evaluation of their true ability to increase the sensitivity of FOBT when combined during general population screening. In our opinion, colibactin and Bacteroides fragilis toxin are the best candidates, possibly complemented by the cytotoxic necrotizing factor (CNF).
Indexed as
Identifiers
34747413What 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.