Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16328356›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2006

Current practice of Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma.

Antonio Lopez-Beltran, Gregor Mikuz, Rafael J Luque, Roberta Mazzucchelli, Rodolfo Montironi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The evolving Gleason grading system.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2016
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

5 authors.

Antonio Lopez-BeltranDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Reina Sofia University Hospital and Cordoba University Medical School, Avda. Menendez Pidal s/n, 14004 Cordoba, Spain. em1lobea@uco.es
Gregor Mikuz
Rafael J Luque
Roberta Mazzucchelli
Rodolfo Montironi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Gleason grading system remains one of the most powerful prognostic factors in prostate cancer and is the dominant method around the world in daily practice. It is based solely on the glandular architecture performed at low magnification. The Gleason grading system should be performed in needle core biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens where it shows a reasonable degree of correlation between both specimens, and most importantly, it remains vital in the treatment decision-making process. This review summarizes the current status of Gleason grading in prostate cancer, incorporating recent proposals for the best contemporary practice of prostate cancer grading.

Indexed as

HumansMalePractice Guidelines as TopicProstateProstatic NeoplasmsSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

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.