ReviewDer Pathologe2016
[Modern biomarkers for precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix : Histological-cytological correlation and use].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Squamous cell precancerous lesions of the cervix uteri].Der Pathologe · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The correlation between the cytological findings from the PAP smear and the histological outcome in cases where the cytological findings must be histologically verified, is an integral component of the German screening program for cervical cancer. These data are collected nationwide as part of a benchmarking process by the individual Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KV) in the federal states and reported to the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) in Berlin. In most cases there is a good correlation between cytology and histology but in some cases either a different grade of severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is found or the histological findings are negative. The reasons for a lack of correlation can be insufficient sampling in the cytology or the biopsy or a misinterpretation of the individual findings. Although the findings from H&E sections are considered to be the gold standard in the histological evaluation, it has long been known that the interobserver agreement in these preparations is only moderate. A significant improvement becomes apparent, firstly by the classification of cervical cancer precursors into low-grade and high-grade groups and secondly by the targeted application of biomarkers, in particular p16 and Ki-67, according to the recommendations of the lower anogenital squamous terminology standardization (LAST) project. The biomarkers p16 and Ki-67 should be used in the differential diagnostics between reactive and reparative alterations and for further differentiation of a CIN grade 2 but not to confirm a CIN grade 3. It is still unclear whether p16 is suitable as a prognostic marker for low-grade lesions.
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.