Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24990071›Full record

GuidelineBrain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland)2014

International Society Of Neuropathology--Haarlem consensus guidelines for nervous system tumor classification and grading.

David N Louis, Arie Perry, Peter Burger, David W Ellison, Guido Reifenberger, Andreas von Deimling, Kenneth Aldape, Daniel Brat, V Peter Collins, Charles Eberhart and 19 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementGuideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 285 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
285citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

285 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

225 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors.

David N LouisDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Arie Perry
Peter Burger
David W Ellison
Guido Reifenberger
Andreas von Deimling
Kenneth Aldape
Daniel Brat
V Peter Collins
Charles Eberhart
Dominique Figarella-Branger
Gregory N Fuller
Felice Giangaspero
Caterina Giannini
Cynthia Hawkins
Paul Kleihues
Andrey Korshunov
Johan M Kros
M Beatriz Lopes
Ho-Keung Ng
Hiroko Ohgaki
Werner Paulus
Torsten Pietsch
Marc Rosenblum
Elisabeth Rushing
Figen Soylemezoglu
Otmar Wiestler
Pieter Wesseling
International Society Of Neuropathology--Haarlem

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Major discoveries in the biology of nervous system tumors have raised the question of how non-histological data such as molecular information can be incorporated into the next World Health Organization (WHO) classification of central nervous system tumors. To address this question, a meeting of neuropathologists with expertise in molecular diagnosis was held in Haarlem, the Netherlands, under the sponsorship of the International Society of Neuropathology (ISN). Prior to the meeting, participants solicited input from clinical colleagues in diverse neuro-oncological specialties. The present "white paper" catalogs the recommendations of the meeting, at which a consensus was reached that incorporation of molecular information into the next WHO classification should follow a set of provided "ISN-Haarlem" guidelines. Salient recommendations include that (i) diagnostic entities should be defined as narrowly as possible to optimize interobserver reproducibility, clinicopathological predictions and therapeutic planning; (ii) diagnoses should be "layered" with histologic classification, WHO grade and molecular information listed below an "integrated diagnosis"; (iii) determinations should be made for each tumor entity as to whether molecular information is required, suggested or not needed for its definition; (iv) some pediatric entities should be separated from their adult counterparts; (v) input for guiding decisions regarding tumor classification should be solicited from experts in complementary disciplines of neuro-oncology; and (iv) entity-specific molecular testing and reporting formats should be followed in diagnostic reports. It is hoped that these guidelines will facilitate the forthcoming update of the fourth edition of the WHO classification of central nervous system tumors.

Indexed as

HumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNervous System NeoplasmsSeverity of Illness IndexAstrocytomaatypical teratoid rhabdoid tumorbrain tumorsclassificationglioblastomagliomagradingmedulloblastomaoligodendrogliomaWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID24990071
PMCPMC8029490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.