Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35035933›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2022

Systematic reporting of medical kidney biopsies.

Sabine Leh, Amélie Dendooven

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Histology and more-modern nephropathology].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. [Introduction to renal pathology].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sabine LehDepartment of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0764-2941
Amélie DendoovenDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9900-7952
Haukeland University Hospital · NOUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The medical kidney biopsy has an important added value in patient care in nephrology. In order to facilitate communication between the pathologist and the nephrologist and optimize patient care, both the content and form of the medical kidney biopsy report matter. With some exceptions, current guidelines in nephropathology focus on content rather than form and, not surprisingly, medical kidney biopsy reports mostly consist of unformatted and often lengthy free text. In contrast, in oncology, a more systematic reporting called synoptic reporting has become the dominant method. Synoptic formats enable complete, concise and clear reports that comply with agreed upon standards. In this review we discuss the possibilities of systematic reporting in nephropathology (including synoptic reporting). Furthermore, we explore applications of electronic formats with structured data and usage of international terminologies or coding systems. The benefits include the timely collection of high-quality data for benchmarking between centres as well as for epidemiologic and other research studies. Based on these developments, a scenario for future medical kidney biopsy reporting is drafted.

Indexed as

guidelineskidney diseasepathologystructured reportingsynoptic reportingsystematic reporting

Identifiers

PMID35035933
PMCPMC8757430
OpenAlexW3183463218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.