Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27638536›Full record

ReviewDer Pathologe2016

[Modern biomarkers for precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix : Histological-cytological correlation and use].

D Schmidt

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

D SchmidtInstitut für Pathologie, Gereonstr. 14a, 41747, Viersen, Deutschland. dischmi57@gmail.com.
LVR-Klinik für Orthopädie Viersen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Squamous CellCervix UteriCondylomata AcuminataFemaleHumansNeoplasm GradingPrecancerous ConditionsRisk FactorsStatistics as TopicUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginaVaginal NeoplasmsVulvar NeoplasmsWorld Health OrganizationBiomarkers, TumorCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaClassificationCytologyHistologyLAST- project

Identifiers

PMID27638536
OpenAlexW2521335136

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.