ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2016
Does everything a surgeon takes out have to be seen by a pathologist? A review of the current pathology practice.
Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2016. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Routine Pathological Examination of Clinically Presumed Dupuytren Disease: Does It Add Value?Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Routine evaluation of tonsillectomy specimens: a cross-sectional survey of Canadian Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgeons.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2022Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Histopathologic examination of surgically removed tissues and organs is an important aspect of modern hospital quality health care. Most surgical specimens deserve to be submitted for pathologic examination, which may yield valuable new information relevant for the future treatment of the patient. A small number of specimens, recognized as providing limited or no valuable clinical data during pathologic examination, may be placed on the list of specimens "exempt from submission" or those that are labeled as "for gross examination only." Guidelines written by the committees of the national regulatory organizations provide general orientation on how to deal with various specimens, but the final decision on which type of specimen to eliminate and which ones to include for pathologic examination rests on local governing and advisory bodies of each institution. Particular lists of specimens exempt from pathologic examination are best generated through a consensus agreement of clinical and laboratory physicians. Even though there is general nationwide and even international consensus on which types of specimens deserve pathologic examination and which do not, there are still discussions about the necessity of some pathologic examinations.
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.