Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21935759›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2011

[Bacterial colitis].

G B Baretton, D E Aust

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Pathologe, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

G B BarettonInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus der TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
D E Aust

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of whether there are inflammatory changes in colorectal biopsy specimens is frequently asked, especially when the patient reports diarrhea or when the mucosa is reddened on endoscopy. The pathologist first has to find out whether there is, in fact, an increase in the inflammatory infiltrate of the colorectal mucosa which warrants the diagnosis of inflammation. If so, the second challenge is to ascertain the etiology of these inflammatory changes, in particular to differentiate between infectious and non-infectious causes. In principle, we can distinguish forms of colitis with distinct morphological hallmarks confirming the diagnosis (e.g. microscopic detection of the causative organism, as well as lymphocytic or collagenous colitis) from other forms of colitis which have a characteristic pattern of findings not necessarily allowing to deduce the etiology (e.g. infectious colitis without microscopic evidence of the germ vs. inflammatory bowel disease). The present article discusses the pathomorphology and differential diagnosis of the most important forms of bacterial colitis.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsColitisColitis, CollagenousColonoscopyDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesIntestinal Mucosa

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.