ArticleDer Pathologe2017
[Recovery of paraffin blocks and central archiving : Experiences of the Kiel lymph node registry and the German study group for Hodgkin lymphoma].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral collection of tissue blocks for pathological and translational research is particularly important in rare diseases. Transfer of tissue blocks from primary to central pathology is of crucial importance.
objectivesWe aimed to answer the following questions: Has the transfer of tissue blocks sent for consultation or within clinical trials changed over the last 20 years? What are the reasons for reclaiming tissue blocks by the primary pathology and what actions would convince primary pathologists to leave the blocks in the reference pathology? MATERIAL AND
methodsThe first 100 biopsies of each year between 1995 and 2015 (n = 2100), as well as all tissue transfers within therapeutic studies (n = 1405, German Hodgkin Study Group, GHSG) between 1998 and 2015, were analyzed separately for block reclaims using the Department of Pathology database. A questionnaire evaluated the reasons for block reclaiming by the peripheral pathologists.
resultsThere is a significant increase in block reclaims during the period analyzed among submissions for consultation as well as in clinical trials (linear regression, p = 0.0195 and p = 0.0107). The percentage of block reclaims does not differ between consultations and cases submitted upon request within clinical trials (p = 0.2404, t-test). A survey among pathologies that reclaim the block showed that their willingness to leave the block at the reference center would increase if the compatibility with accreditation guidelines (39.3%), a positive statement from professional associations (25%), or a formal confirmation of availability (53.6%) is provided. DISCUSSION: In particular, to improve research on rare diseases, it is desirable to point out the compatibility of central archiving in a designated center with accreditation guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28676898What 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.