Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14651720›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2003

Biopsy assessment of drug efficacy in the gastrointestinal tract.

Marjorie M Walker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Marjorie M WalkerDepartment of Histopathology, Division of Investigative Science, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG. mm.walker@imperial.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When using biopsy pathology in clinical pharmacology to assess drug efficacy in the gastrointestinal tract, a number of questions must be answered: Is the biopsy necessary or more effective than macroscopic views by endoscopy? Can we extract maximal information from the specimen? Are there surrogate serum or other markers that give an overall measure of disease and/or improvement? Indeed, clinicopathological correlation is of paramount importance. If biopsy is to be used, it is important to utilize appropriate scoring systems. Many grading systems use continuous spectra, which are ordinal categorical variables and therefore a grading system of assigned 'numbers' which cannot be used in processes that require continuous variables such as linear regression. The use of grading vs a 'true' score with real numbers must be carefully considered, the site and number of biopsies must be precisely chosen and interobserver reproducibility of results evaluated before undertaking drug trials. Immunocytochemistry and in situ hybridization, however, can provide quantifiable molecular information related to mechanisms of drug action. The biopsy is of significant value as it is a true in vivo assessment if the above caveats are taken into account. However, further work is needed to determine sound histological criteria to assess the efficacy of drugs for use in gastrointestinal disease.

Indexed as

BiopsyDigestive SystemGastrointestinal DiseasesHumans

Identifiers

PMID14651720
PMCPMC1884402

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.