ReviewDer Pathologe2020
[Cytological findings in glandular lesions of the uterine cervix].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2020. 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, 0 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
backgroundDue to further developments in the diagnosis of glandular cervical changes with the definition of several new entities, the exact classification of these can only be achieved with the help of cytomorphology and additive methods. OBJECTIVES AND
methodsThe aim of this work is to give an overview of the status and future perspectives of cytomorphological diagnostics and biomarkers in this setting. Our own expertise and literature data were considered and evaluated. We especially covered the benign group including microglandular hyperplasia, tubal metaplasia, and reactive withdrawal induced changes, as well as adenocarcinoma in situ of usual type and invasive adenocarcinoma of usual type. RESULTS AND
conclusionsImmunocytochemical markers may occasionally take a role in the evaluation of benign endocervical glandular proliferations, the mainstay of their interpretation occurs morphologically in the conventional routinely stained smears. Adenocarcinoma in situ of usual type has very characteristic cytological criteria, which are reproducible in daily work, and p16 positivity is a very useful marker for this HPV-related lesion. The present classification of invasive adenocarcinomas of the endocervix requires knowledge of new immunohistochemical and molecular technologies. Due to HPV vaccination we can expect a decrease of HPV associated adenocarcinomas and a relative increase of HPV negative, clinically more aggressive adenocarcinomas. The cytological features of some groups of non-HPV-associated adenocarcinomas are not specific. In these instances, the different biomarkers are more helpful.
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.