Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30765881›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2019

Knowledge gaps in the appendix: a multi-institutional study from seven academic centers.

Christina A Arnold, Rondell P Graham, Dhanpat Jain, Sanjay Kakar, Dora M Lam-Himlin, Bita V Naini, Tsung-Teh Wu, Matthew M Yeh, Michael S Torbenson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Post-inflammatory mucosal hyperplasia and appendiceal diverticula simulate features of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Christina A ArnoldDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Christina.Arnold@OSUMC.edu.
Rondell P GrahamDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8686-4867
Dhanpat JainDepartment of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Sanjay KakarDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dora M Lam-HimlinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Bita V NainiDepartment of Pathology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Tsung-Teh WuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Matthew M YehDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Michael S TorbensonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Washington · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Appendix pathology represents uncommonly encountered specimens with unique diagnostic challenges. To delineate common knowledge gaps, extramural consults submitted to seven institutions between 2016-2017 were reviewed. All appendix consults were resections (100%, n = 43), and the majority were directed for consultation by the originating pathologist (95%, n = 41) with no additional studies performed by the consultant (65%, n = 28). This study was dominated by inquiries related to low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (44%, n = 19) and goblet cell carcinoid related neoplasms (19%, n = 8). Of the 43 appendiceal consults, 19 were submitted by the contributing pathologist as low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, but only half of these were diagnosed by the consultant as such (n = 9). Low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm-related consultation themes included diverticular disease, criteria for invasion, high grade atypia, extra-appendiceal mucin, and staging. Examples of major disagreements that were downgraded included consults submitted as low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm and diagnosed by the consultant as serrated polyp (n = 3), appendicitis (n = 1), and benign appendix (n = 1). Examples of major disagreements-upgraded included cases submitted as low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm and diagnosed by the consultant as low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm with high-risk features (n = 2) and mucinous adenocarcinoma (n = 2). One case contained both a major disagreement-upgrade (low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm changed to high grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm) and a major disagreement-downgrade (pT3 changed to Tis). Of the 15 cases diagnosed by the consultants as low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, submitted diagnoses included low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (n = 9), adenocarcinoma (n = 5), and one case was submitted without a diagnosis. For goblet cell carcinoid-related consults, the usual inquiry related to distinguishing goblet cell carcinoid from goblet cell carcinoid with adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma ex-goblet cell carcinoid). Of the 38 overall consults with a submitted diagnosis, 53% (n = 20) were disagreements, and most of these were major disagreements-downgraded (n = 13).

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, MucinousAppendiceal NeoplasmsAppendixCarcinoid TumorHumans

Identifiers

PMID30765881
OpenAlexW2913921762

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.