Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31974661›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2020

[Characterization of different renal cell carcinoma entities].

N J Rupp, H Moch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

N J RuppInstitut für Pathologie und Molekularpathologie, UniversitätsSpital Zürich, Schmelzbergstr. 12, 8091, Zürich, Schweiz. niels.rupp@usz.ch.
H MochInstitut für Pathologie und Molekularpathologie, UniversitätsSpital Zürich, Schmelzbergstr. 12, 8091, Zürich, Schweiz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, the characterization of different renal cell carcinoma entities has significantly improved, in particular due to molecular typing.

objectivesClassical, accepted and emerging renal cell carcinoma entities are described. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature search was performed, followed by evaluation and description of the literature focusing on different renal cell carcinoma entities.

resultsClassical renal cell carcinoma entities such as clear cell carcinoma, papillary renal cell carcinoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma have been expanded in particular by molecular techniques to include, for example, translocation carcinoma or carcinoma with mutations in genes of the mitochondrial energy metabolism. Some rare entities have been accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, while some are considered as emerging entities.

conclusionsA range of newly accepted and emerging renal cell carcinoma entities have been introduced in the 2016 WHO classification. A precise and correct diagnosis is of major importance regarding the prognostic assessment, potential new therapeutic strategies and possible hereditary associations.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellHumansKidneyKidney NeoplasmsLeiomyomatosisPrognosisTranslocation, GeneticWorld Health OrganizationClassificationHereditaryLeiomyomatosisMolecularTranslocation carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID31974661

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.