ReviewGynecologic and obstetric investigation2024
Expert Pathology for Gestational Trophoblastic Disease: Towards an International Multidisciplinary Team Meeting.
Review in Gynecologic and obstetric investigation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary Uterine Nongestational Placental Site Trophoblastic Tumor as a Distinct Entity: A Report of 5 Cases.The American journal of surgical pathology · 2026Article
- Placental Site Trophoblastic Tumor: Two Rare Case Report and Literature Review Within a Decade.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- Impact of Digital Education on MDT Decision-Making in Shortening Hospital Stay for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Disc Herniation Treatment: A Retrospective Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), comprising hydatidiform moles and gestational trophoblastic tumours, is extremely rare. Exact diagnosis is crucial to indicate the appropriate treatment and to prevent complications. The scarcity and variability in the number of cases available for reporting, lack of specialised training in GTD, and non-existence of refresher courses implies that the pathologist dealing with these rare and, at times, extremely challenging cases is not completely confident in their diagnosis.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to explore the benefits of implementation of an international multidisciplinary conference (virtual) to aid diagnosis of difficult cases and support clinical management of GTD.
methodsA short survey was circulated to all 46 members of the EOTTD pathology and genetics working party and further spread to other colleagues who practice GTD. This showed that the pathologists and geneticists working with GTD patients do not feel adequately supported and equipped with dealing with these rare diseases. OUTCOME: Virtual cross-border multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) were initiated in April 2022, bringing together participants from 11 European countries on a bi-yearly basis. Mean numbers of 3 patients are discussed during the MDTs followed by 3-4 quality assessment cases. A participant survey was conducted at the end of virtual meeting with an average satisfaction rate of 9.5. The pathologists felt supported and benefited from networking and clinical collaboration. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK: This international MDT continues to provide support in managing the uncertainty with difficult and rare cases and enhances the pathologists training and experience. The frequency of meetings and the number of cases discussed per meeting will be increased in 2023 given the positive response. This will empower individuals and organisations to work together and improve diagnosis and the prognosis for these young patients.
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.