ReviewDer Pathologe2011
[Standardized and structured histopathological evaluation of colorectal polyps: a practical checklist against the background of the new WHO classification].
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [BRAF-V600E testing in metastatic colorectal cancer and new, chemotherapy-free therapy options. German version].Der Pathologe · 2021Review
- BRAF testing in metastatic colorectal carcinoma and novel, chemotherapy-free therapeutic options.Der Pathologe · 2021Review
- Synoptic Reporting: Evidence-Based Review and Future Directions.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2018Review
- Performance of a Web-based Method for Generating Synoptic Reports.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
- Epidemiology of Colorectal Adenomas and Histopathological Assessment of Endoscopic Specimens in the Colorectum.Viszeralmedizin · 2014Review
- [Precancerous colorectal tumors].Der Internist · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastroenterologists removing colorectal polyps expect standardized and well-structured pathological reports, providing them with all relevant data for the further clinical management of the patient. Over the last year, a task force of clinicians and pathologists has developed a checklist to improve and harmonize endoscopic and pathological reporting of colorectal polyps. This checklist concentrates more on concrete recommendations from evidence-based guidelines and established international classifications for daily practice rather than detailed molecular pathological pathways of carcinogenesis. These recommendations are based on the current S3 guidelines for colorectal cancer (the chapter entitled "Management of colorectal polyps"), the histomorphological consensus manuscript of the GI working group of the German Society for Pathology, as well as the current WHO classification for tumors of the digestive system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21678043What 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.