ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2003
Biopsy assessment of drug efficacy in the gastrointestinal tract.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.