↓ Skip to main content

Update on the types and usage of liquid biopsies in the clinical setting: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Update on the types and usage of liquid biopsies in the clinical setting: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4433-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Borros Arneth

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to gather evidence from research on the current state of liquid biopsy in medical practice, specifically focusing on mutation detection and monitoring. A systematic search was performed via Medline. The results of this investigation indicate that liquid biopsy plays a critical role in the detection and management of tumors. This technique gives healthcare providers the ability to gather critical and reliable information that may potentially shape the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of a variety of cancers in the near future. This study further reveals that liquid biopsy has several potential shortcomings that may limit its application and use in the healthcare setting. Nevertheless, liquid biopsy remains a valuable tool that is gradually becoming a part of routine healthcare practice in oncology departments and hospitals worldwide. The evidence described herein reveals the potential relevance of liquid biopsy as an important prognostic, diagnostic, and theranostic tool. This non-invasive procedure enables healthcare practitioners to detect and monitor genomic alterations and will likely replace tumor tissue biopsy as the standard method for detecting and monitoring mutations in the future. The information obtained herein can enable physicians to make informed decisions regarding current treatment options; however, liquid biopsy has not yet been incorporated into routine clinical diagnostics for cancer patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 8 5%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 43 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 8%
Unspecified 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 51 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,613,926
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#232
of 8,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,151
of 326,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#8
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,386 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.