Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36592436›Full record

ArticlePhysiological research2022

Is there a Need to Change the Basic Principles of Histology? Educational, Functional and Embryological Perspective.

I Varga, D Kachlík, M Csöbönyeiová, C Feitscherová, M Klein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

I VargaInstitute of Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovak Republic. ivan.varga@fmed.uniba.sk.
D Kachlík
M Csöbönyeiová
C Feitscherová
M Klein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although it is not an easy task to classify cells into different types, or in turn cell types into tissue types, a clear, understandable, didactically and clinically relevant tissue classification is indispensable for undergraduate medical education, expert discussions in biomedical research as well as for clinical practice. From the earliest discovery of the light microscope on, tissue classification has been a dynamic process. Historically, it was not a rare occurrence that different textbooks offered different tissue classifications. Nowadays, classifications have almost become uniform - the most common is the histological classification into four basic tissue types (epithelial, connective, muscle, nervous), which is recognized by the majority of modern histology and pathology textbooks. The reason is that, with some exceptions, this classification seems to be the most relevant not only for educational purposes but also from an embryological perspective and clinical-histopathological practice. Recently, attempts have been made to abandon this established classification and replace it with a new one. Any new classification, which would improve the presently used is welcomed. However, if the proposed innovation does not satisfy the needs of modern education and clinical practice, it should be handled with great caution or reconsidered.

Identifiers

PMID36592436
PMCPMC9853998

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.