Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31209654›Full record

ReviewPathology oncology research : POR2020

Solid-pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas is still an Enigma: a Clinicopathological Review.

Attila Zalatnai, Viktória Kis-Orha

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: a rare tumor case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Rare pancreatic cystic neoplasms: A pictorial review.European journal of radiology open · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Attila ZalatnaiFirst Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, H-1085 Üllői út, Budapest, 26, Hungary. zalatnai@korb1.sote.hu.
Viktória Kis-OrhaFirst Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, H-1085 Üllői út, Budapest, 26, Hungary.
Semmelweis University · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is a rare but enigmatic entity occurring mainly in young women. Since the first description by V. Frantz in 1959 the terminology of this tumor has continuously changed but it has remained simply descriptive, because the exact histogenesis is still obscure. Although in majority of cases the survival is excellent, nevertheless, the expected prognosis is not exactly predictable. In this review the authors aim to summarize its clinico-pathological features, the expected biological behavior, the molecular alterations, the immune phenotype and discuss the putative histogenesis. From diagnostic point of view, the salient histological characteristic findings are analyzed that would help to differentiate it from other, look-alike pancreatic tumors, and suggestions are made about the desirable content of the histological report.

Indexed as

HumansNeoplasms, Cystic, Mucinous, and SerousPancreatic NeoplasmsHistogenesisPancreasReviewSolid-pseudopapillary neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID31209654
PMCPMC7242268
OpenAlexW2952479602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.