Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34079071›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2021

Counting mitoses: SI(ze) matters!

Ian A Cree, Puay Hoon Tan, William D Travis, Pieter Wesseling, Yukako Yagi, Valerie A White, Dilani Lokuhetty, Richard A Scolyer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Ki-67 assessment of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Systematic review and meta-analysis of manual vs. digital pathology scoring.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Toward Optimizing the Impact of Digital Pathology and Augmented Intelligence on Issues of Diagnosis, Grading, Staging, and Classification.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Ian A CreeInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, Lyon, France. creei@iarc.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-5007-9456
Puay Hoon TanDivision of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
William D TravisDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3160-6729
Pieter WesselingDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers/VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Yukako YagiDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Valerie A WhiteInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Dilani LokuhettyInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Richard A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia and Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8991-0013

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mitoses are often assessed by pathologists to assist the diagnosis of cancer, and to grade malignancy, informing prognosis. Historically, this has been done by expressing the number of mitoses per n high power fields (HPFs), ignoring the fact that microscope fields may differ substantially, even at the same high power (×400) magnification. Despite a requirement to define HPF size in scientific papers, many authors fail to address this issue adequately. The problem is compounded by the switch to digital pathology systems, where ×400 equivalent fields are rectangular and also vary in the area displayed. The potential for error is considerable, and at times this may affect patient care. This is easily solved by the use of standardized international (SI) units. We, therefore, recommend that features such as mitoses are always counted per mm

Indexed as

HumansMicroscopyMitotic IndexNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34079071
PMCPMC8376633

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.