Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35098157›Full record

ArticleSensors and actuators reports2021

Advances in the analysis of single extracellular vesicles: A critical review.

Shannon H Hilton, Ian M White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors and actuators reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Circulating tumor cellsTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2024
    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.

Shannon H HiltonFischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, USA, 20742.
Ian M WhiteFischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, USA, 20742.

Funding

Training Grant in Cancer BiologyT32CA154274 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI Toni M Antalis, CURT I CIVIN · 2011 to 2026
$6.8M
Enabling exosome biomarker development via digitized single vesicle analysisR01GM130923 · NIGMS · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI DEVOE, DON L, WHITE, IAN M · 2019 to 2022
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA154274NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM130923
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an ever-growing need for new cancer diagnostic approaches that provide earlier diagnosis as well as richer diagnostic, prognostic, and resistance information. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) recovered from a liquid biopsy have paradigm-shifting potential to offer earlier and more complete diagnostic information in the form of a minimally invasive liquid biopsy. However, much remains unknown about EVs, and current analytical approaches are unable to provide precise information about the contents and source of EVs. New approaches have emerged to analyze EVs at the single particle level, providing the opportunity to study biogenesis, correlate markers for higher specificity, and connect EV cargo with the source or destination. In this critical review we describe and analyze methods for single EV analysis that have emerged over the last five years. In addition, we note that current methods are limited in their adoption due to cost and complexity and we offer opportunities for the research community to address this challenge.

Identifiers

PMID35098157
PMCPMC8792802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.