Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18820922›Full record

ArticleDer Pathologe2008

[WHO classification of tumours of the CNS: revised edition of 2007 with critical comments on the typing und grading of common-type diffuse gliomas].

S Feiden, W Feiden

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Pathologe, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Pathologic features and clinical outcome of central neurocytoma: analysis of 15 cases.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2012
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S FeidenInstitut für Neuropathologie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Gebäude 90.3, 66421, Homburg Saar, Deutschland.
W Feiden
Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fourth edition of the WHO classification of tumours of the CNS was published in 2007. Six new entities were codified: angiocentric glioma (AG); papillary glioneuronal tumour (PGNT); rosette-forming glioneuronal tumour of the fourth ventricle (RGNT); papillary tumour of the pineal region (PTPR); spindle cell oncocytoma of the adenohypophysis (SCO); and pituicytoma. Furthermore, six histological variants of well-known brain tumours have been added, partially because they show different biological behaviour and/or prognosis: pilomyxoid astrocytoma; atypical choroid plexus papilloma; medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity; anaplastic medulloblastoma; extraventricular neurocytoma; non-specific variant of dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumour (DNT). The new entities and variants are discussed in this review. Moreover, the typing und grading of common-type diffuse gliomas, as well as the WHO grading system, are critically reviewed, particularly with regard to the prognostically important differential diagnosis of diffuse astrocytomas und oligodendrogliomas.

Indexed as

AstrocytomaBrain NeoplasmsCentral Nervous System NeoplasmsChoroid NeoplasmsGliomaHumansMedulloblastomaOligodendrogliomaPapillomaWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID18820922
OpenAlexW1552252573

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.