ReviewDer Pathologe2019
[Squamous cell precancerous lesions of the cervix uteri].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2019. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe histological and immunohistochemical evaluation of tissue samples obtained in the course of the investigation and treatment of precancerous squamous lesions of the cervix uteri is an essential task of the pathologist. Given the surprising variety of morphological findings, including the many possible differential diagnoses of dysplastic changes, this is not an easy task. DIFFERENTIATION: Biologically, only two prognostically different groups can be distinguished, which according to the WHO classification are referred to as low-grade or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs or HSILs). An additional distinction as CIN1, CIN2 or CIN3 should also be made, in particular because CIN2 lesions represent a heterogeneous group of dysplastic changes. USAGE OF BIOMARKERS: The p16 biomarker, which has been widely studied, is extremely helpful in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of these lesions, as regenerative and reparative changes as well as non-HPV-associated squamous cell metaplasia, are p16 negative or show patchy staining only. The indications for its use were clearly defined in the LAST project. In contrast to the diagnostic advantage, the prognostic significance of p16 in the low-grade intraepithelial lesions is controversial. Other markers such as CK7 and HPVE4 may help here. The immunohistochemistry for p16 may also be useful in examining the resection margins of a conization specimen, especially if thermoeffects make it difficult to make an unambiguous assessment. However, for the prognostic assessment of the clinical course after conization, the HPV test is more important because it better captures the risk of persistence or the risk of recurrence.
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.