ReviewDer Pathologe2011
[Histopathological diagnosis and differential diagnosis of colorectal serrated polys: findings of a consensus conference of the working group "gastroenterological pathology of the German Society of Pathology"].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraprocedural bowel cleansing with the JetPrep cleansing system improves adenoma detection.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Trial
- Competition in Colon Cancer Screening? What Is the Role of Colonoscopy?Viszeralmedizin · 2014Review
- Increased expression of α-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase (AMACR; p504s) and p16 in distal hyperplastic polyps.Diagnostic pathology · 2013Article
- [Standardized and structured histopathological evaluation of colorectal polyps: a practical checklist against the background of the new WHO classification].Der Pathologe · 2011Review
- CpG island methylation in colorectal cancer: past, present and future.Pathology research international · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Until recently, two major types of colorectal epithelial polyps were distinguished: the adenoma and the hyperplastic polyp. While adenomas - because of their cytological atypia - were recognized as precursor lesions for colorectal carcinoma, hyperplastic polyps were perceived as harmless lesions without any potential for malignant progression, mainly because hyperplastic polyps lack cytological atypia. Meanwhile, it is evident that the lesions formerly classified as hyperplastic represent a heterogeneous group of polyps, some of which exhibit a significant risk of neoplastic progression. These lesions show characteristic epigenetic alterations not commonly seen in colorectal adenomas and progress to colorectal carcinoma via the so-called serrated pathway (CIMP pathway). This group of polyps is comprised not only of hyperplastic polyps, but also of sessile serrated adenomas (SSA), traditional serrated adenomas (TSA) and mixed polyps, showing serrated and "classical" adenomatous features. In a consensus conference of the working group of gastroenterological pathology of the German Society of Pathology, standardization of nomenclature and diagnostic criteria as well as recommendations for clinical management of these serrated polyps were formulated and are presented herein.
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.