Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35125814›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2021

Novel technologies in cfDNA analysis and potential utility in clinic.

Jie Li, Mengyue Xu, Junya Peng, Jingqiao Wang, Yupei Zhao, Wenming Wu, Xun Lan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Jie LiDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
Mengyue XuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Junya PengDepartment of Medical Research, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Jingqiao WangDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Yupei ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Wenming WuDepartment of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Xun LanDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The profiling of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is becoming a valuable tool rapidly for tumor diagnosis, monitoring and prognosis. Diverse plasma cfDNA technologies have been in routine or emerging use, including analyses of mutations, copy number alterations, gene fusions and DNA methylation. Recently, new technologies in cfDNA analysis have been developed in laboratories, and potentially reflect the status of epigenetic modification, the immune microenvironment and the microbiome in tumor tissues. In this review, the authors discuss the principles, methods and effects of the current cfDNA assays and provide an overview of studies that may inform clinical applications in the near future.

Indexed as

cancer diagnosiscfDNAliquid biopsyrecurrence monitoringtherapy response

Identifiers

PMID35125814
PMCPMC8742177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.