↓ Skip to main content

Cell-free microRNAs: potential biomarkers in need of standardized reporting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Cell-free microRNAs: potential biomarkers in need of standardized reporting
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2013.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela B. Kirschner, Nico van Zandwijk, Glen Reid

Abstract

MicroRNAs are abundantly present and surprisingly stable in multiple biological fluids. These findings have been followed by numerous reverse transcription real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)-based reports revealing the clinical potential of using microRNA levels in body fluids as a biomarker of disease. Despite a rapidly increasing body of literature, the field has failed to adopt a set of standardized criteria for reporting the methodology used in the quantification of cell-free microRNAs. Not only do many studies based on RT-qPCR fail to address the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) criteria but frequently there is also a distinct lack of detail in descriptions of sample source and RNA isolation. As a direct result, it is often impossible to compare the results of different studies, which in turn, hinders progress in the field. To address this point, we propose a simple set of criteria to be used in conjunction with MIQE to reveal the true potential of cell-free microRNAs as biomarkers.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 112 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 18 15%
Other 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 9 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 18 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 June 2013.
All research outputs
#5,859,626
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,654
of 11,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,975
of 280,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#71
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,755 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 280,717 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.