ReviewAdvances in therapy2020
Developing Classifications of Laryngeal Dysplasia: The Historical Basis.
Review in Advances in therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- PD-L1 Expression and Immune Microenvironment Remodeling During Laryngeal Carcinogenesis: Implications for Malignant Progression of Laryngeal Dysplasia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- The histopathological spectrum of laryngeal epithelial neoplasia.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2026Review
- Phonosurgical Treatment of Laryngeal Leukoplakia and Dysplasia: Results of Multidimensional Voice Diagnostics Including the VEM.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Moderate Laryngeal Dysplasia in the Context of Classification Systems and Clinical Decision Making.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Assessing the Accuracy, Safety, and Tolerance of Office-Based Endoscopic Biopsies for Laryngopharyngeal Lesions.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- A 6-Year Retrospective Study of the Demographics of Glottic Keratosis in a Tertiary Care Voice Centre.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
- Comparison of the prognoses of laryngeal preneoplastic lesions based on Ljubljana and World Health Organization classifications.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- Update from the 5th Edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Head and Neck Tumors: Hypopharynx, Larynx, Trachea and Parapharyngeal Space.Head and neck pathology · 2022Review
- Management of Laryngeal Dysplasia and Early Invasive Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last 60 years numerous significant attempts have been made to achieve a widely acceptable terminology and histological grading for laryngeal squamous intraepithelial lesions. While dysplasia was included in the pathology of the uterine cervix already in 1953, the term dysplasia was accepted in laryngeal pathology first after the Toronto Centennial Conference on Laryngeal Cancer in 1974. In 1963 Kleinsasser proposed a three-tier classification, and in 1971 Kambic and Lenart proposed a four-tier classification. Since then, four editions of the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification have been proposed (1978, 1991, 2005 and 2017). Several terms such as squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (SIN) and laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN) are now being abandoned and replaced by squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL). The essential change between the 2005 and 2017 WHO classifications is the attempt to induce a simplification from a four- to a two-tier system. The current WHO classification (2017) thus recommends the use of a two-tier system with reasonably clear histopathological criteria for the two groups: low-grade and high-grade dysplasia. Problems with interobserver variability apart, subjectivities and uncertainties remain, but to a lesser degree. Ongoing and additional molecular studies may help to clarify underlying events that will increase our understanding and possibly can facilitate our attempts to obtain an even better classification. The classification needs to be easier for the general pathologist to perform and easier for the clinician to interpret. These two objectives are equally important to provide each patient the best personalised treatment available for squamous intraepithelial lesions.
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.