ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
Different primers for diagnosing circulating cell-free DNA of colorectal cancer.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and prognostic significance of ALU-based cell-free DNA in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- The impact of preanalytical variables on the analysis of cell-free DNA from blood and urine samples.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- The level and integrity of plasma circulating cell-free DNA in patients with primary multiple myeloma.Translational cancer research · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCell-free DNA (cfDNA) primers have been designed to screen for cancer diagnosis, but the results have been inconsistent. The study aimed to compare different primers for diagnosing cfDNA of colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsPeripheral blood specimens were collected from 71 patients with CRC and 20 patients with proliferative intestinal polyps. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (q-PCR) was used to detect the concentration of cfDNA of these primers, including ALU elements (ALU), Beta-actin (ACTB), and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH). The receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) was performed to analyze the diagnostic value.
resultsThe concentration of cfDNA in plasma of the CRC group determined by primers ALU and GAPDH was significantly higher than that of the intestinal polyp group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in cfDNA level determined by primer ACTB between the CRC group and the intestinal polyp group (P>0.05). The area under curves (AUCs) of ALU, GAPDH, and ACTB were 0.734, 0.800, and 0.503, respectively.
conclusionsThe GAPDH and ALU in plasma are expected to be sensitive indicators for the diagnosis of CRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.