Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34771592›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Liquid Biopsy and Primary Brain Tumors.

Robert H Eibl, Markus Schneemann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Translational lung cancer research · 2025
    Article
  11. A scoping review of factors influencing the implementation of liquid biopsy for cancer care.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

2 authors.

Robert H Eiblc/o M. Schneemann, Department of Internal Medicine, Hospitals of Schaffhausen, 8208 Schaffhausen, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-6687-5286
Markus SchneemannDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospitals of Schaffhausen, 8208 Schaffhausen, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two decades of "promising results" in liquid biopsy have led to both continuing disappointment and hope that the new era of minimally invasive, personalized analysis can be applied for better diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring, and therapy of cancer. Here, we briefly highlight the promises, developments, and challenges related to liquid biopsy of brain tumors, including circulating tumor cells, cell-free nucleic acids, extracellular vesicles, and miRNA; we further discuss the urgent need to establish suitable biomarkers and the right standards to improve modern clinical management of brain tumor patients with the use of liquid biopsy.

Indexed as

biomarkerbrain tumorcirculating tumor cell—CTCcirculating tumor (ct)DNAextracellular vesicleglioblastomagliomaliquid biopsymedulloblastomamicroRNA—miR

Identifiers

PMID34771592
PMCPMC8582521

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.