Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26545171›Full record

ReviewCNS oncology2015

Molecular diagnostics: techniques and recommendations for 1p/19q assessment.

Adelheid Woehrer, Johannes A Hainfellner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CNS oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. IDH mutant high-grade gliomas.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Use of multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect deletions in clinical tissue sections.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Adelheid WoehrerInstitute of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Johannes A HainfellnerInstitute of Neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several morphology- and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods for chromosome 1p 19q deletion status assessment are available. Important prerequisites for all molecular techniques concern tissue quality and selection of regions of interest. The most common methods for diagnostic 1p 19q assessment are fluorescence in situ hybridization and PCR-based microsatellite analysis. While the latter requires the use of autologous blood samples, more advanced techniques such as array comparative genomic hybridization, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification or real-time PCR are independent from autologous DNA samples. However, due to high technical demand and experience required their applicability as diagnostic tests remains to be shown. On the other hand, chromogenic in situ hybridization evolves as attractive alternative to FISH. Herein, the available test methods are reviewed and outlined, their advantages and drawbacks being discussed in detail.

Indexed as

Chromosome DeletionPathology, MolecularBrain NeoplasmsChromosomes, Human, Pair 1Chromosomes, Human, Pair 9GliomaHumansIn Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence1p 19q deletionanalytical performanceclinical performanceoligodendroglial tumors

Identifiers

PMID26545171
PMCPMC6082333

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.