ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Towards Preanalytical Best Practices for Liquid Biopsy Studies: A BLOODPAC Landscape Analysis.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracellular vesicle biomarkers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: from bulk detection to single-extracellular vesicle profiling and endoscopic liquid biopsy.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Pre-analytical optimization of cell-free DNA and extracellular vesicle-derived DNA for mutation detection in liquid biopsies.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- Where Does Liquid Biopsy Add Value in Thyroid Cancer? Biological Rationale, Technological Innovation, and Clinical Utility.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Early ctDNA Dynamics Predict Response to Mosperafenib in BRAF V600-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- Integration of Nanotechnology with ctDNA: New Advances for Monitoring Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Advances in Liquid Biopsy for Precision Oncology: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions in Clinical Laboratories.OncoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- Review
- Article
- Circulating tumor DNA in patients with cancer: insights from clinical laboratory.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Enhancing detection and monitoring of circulating tumor cells: Integrative approaches in liquid biopsy advances.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BLOODPAC is a public-private consortium that develops best practices, coordinates clinical and translational research, and manages the BLOODPAC Data Commons to broadly support the liquid biopsy community and accelerate regulatory review to aid patient accessibility. BLOODPAC previously recommended 11 preanalytical minimal technical data elements (MTDEs) for BLOODPAC-sponsored studies and data submitted to BLOODPAC Data Commons. The current landscape analysis evaluates the overlap of the BLOODPAC MTDEs with current best practices, guidelines, and standards documents related to clinical and research liquid biopsy applications. Our findings indicate an existing high degree of concordance among these documents. Where differences exist, the BLOODPAC preanalytical MTDEs can be considered a minimal practicable set for organizations to utilize. These MTDEs were developed following extensive examination of best practices and iterative conversations with the U.S. FDA. BLOODPAC recommends the use of these MTDEs in submissions to data commons and to support liquid biopsy clinical trials and research globally.
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.