Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22038135›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2011

[Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of cervical adenocarcinoma].

T Löning, L Riethdorf, M Köbel

Abstract readReview
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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

T LöningReferenzzentrum für Gynäkopathologie und Zytologie, Albertinen Pathologie Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland.
L Riethdorf
M Köbel
Calgary Laboratory Services · CAPathologie Hamburg-West · DEPraxis für Humangenetik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This overview summarizes pathogenetic and practical aspects of (sub-)classification of cervical glandular (pre-)neoplasias and, inter alia, calls into question the usefulness of grading. In the context of the differential diagnosis of benign "imitations", the phenotypic variability of glandular precancerous lesions and carcinomas is described as well as the use of special tests to distinguish them. With regard to carcinomas, the differential diagnosis of well-differentiated neoplasias is addressed including "minimal deviation" adenocarcinoma (MDA, malignant adenoma), carcinomas with endometrioid or villoglandular morphology, and mesonephric hyper- and neoplasias. Furthermore, knowledge of HPV-negative glandular (pre-)neoplasias is covered including "gastric-type" adenocarcinomas and diagnostic algorithms for discriminating between primary and secondary cervical adenocarcinomas. Finally, comments are offered on the difficulties in recognizing early invasive adenocarcinomas, especially also the pitfalls inherent in determining the depth of invasion.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorCell Transformation, NeoplasticCervix UteriDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16HumansKi-67 AntigenNeoplasm InvasivenessPapillomavirus InfectionsPrecancerous ConditionsProto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-2Tumor Suppressor Protein p53Ubiquitin-Protein LigasesBiomarkers, TumorKi-67 AntigenMIB1 ligase, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-2Tumor Suppressor Protein p53Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases

Identifiers

PMID22038135
OpenAlexW1232771943

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.