Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16967267›Full record

GuidelineVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2006

TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system.

G Rindi, G Klöppel, H Alhman, M Caplin, A Couvelard, W W de Herder, B Erikssson, A Falchetti, M Falconi, P Komminoth and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus StatementMulticenter StudyPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline 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 545 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
545citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
26.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

545 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,569 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

485 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

20 authors at 16 institutions in 8 countries.

G RindiDipartimento di Patologia e, Medicina di Laboratorio, Sezione di Anatomia Patologica, Università di Parma, Via Gramsci, 14, 43100, Parma, Italy, and Department of Internal Medicine, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. guido.rindi@unipr.it
G Klöppel
H Alhman
M Caplin
A Couvelard
W W de Herder
B Erikssson
A Falchetti
M Falconi
P Komminoth
M Körner
J M Lopes
A-M McNicol
O Nilsson
A Perren
A Scarpa
J-Y Scoazec
B Wiedenmann
all other Frascati Consensus Conference participants
European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS)
University of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Verona · ITChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DEErasmus University Rotterdam · NLGlasgow Royal Infirmary · GBHôpital Beaujon · FRKantonsspital Baden · CHThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Parma · ITUppsala University Hospital · SEVivantes Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for standards in the management of patients with endocrine tumors of the digestive system prompted the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) to organize a first Consensus Conference, which was held in Frascati (Rome) and was based on the recently published ENETS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of digestive neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Here, we report the tumor-node-metastasis proposal for foregut NETs of the stomach, duodenum, and pancreas that was designed, discussed, and consensually approved at this conference. In addition, we report the proposal for a working formulation for the grading of digestive NETs based on mitotic count and Ki-67 index. This proposal, which needs to be validated, is meant to help clinicians in the stratification, treatment, and follow-up of patients.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorDigestive System NeoplasmsHumansLymph NodesMitotic IndexNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingNeuroendocrine TumorsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID16967267
PMCPMC1888719
OpenAlexW2063178653

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.