Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38602524›Full record

ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Comparative pathology in oncology-Best practice].

Tanja Groll, Heike Aupperle-Lellbach, Carolin Mogler, Katja Steiger

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. 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. 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

4 authors.

Tanja GrollInstitut für Pathologie und Pathologische Anatomie, School of Medicine and Health, Technische Universität München, Trogerstraße 18, 81675, München, Deutschland.
Heike Aupperle-LellbachInstitut für Pathologie und Pathologische Anatomie, School of Medicine and Health, Technische Universität München, Trogerstraße 18, 81675, München, Deutschland.
Carolin MoglerInstitut für Pathologie und Pathologische Anatomie, School of Medicine and Health, Technische Universität München, Trogerstraße 18, 81675, München, Deutschland.
Katja SteigerInstitut für Pathologie und Pathologische Anatomie, School of Medicine and Health, Technische Universität München, Trogerstraße 18, 81675, München, Deutschland. katja.steiger@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7269-5433

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research Crack it
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative experimental pathology is a research field at the interface of human and veterinary medicine. It is focused on the comparative study of similarities and differences between spontaneous and experimentally induced diseases in animals (animal models) compared to human diseases. The use of animal models for studying human diseases is an essential component of biomedical research. Interdisciplinary teams with species-specific expertise should collaborate wherever possible and maintain close communication. Mutual openness, cooperation, and willingness to learn form the basis for a fruitful collaboration. Research projects jointly led by or involving both animal and human pathologists make a significant contribution to high-quality biomedical research. Such approaches are promising not only in oncological research, as outlined in this article, but also in other research areas where animal models are regularly used, such as infectiology, neurology, and developmental biology.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAnimalsBiomedical ResearchDisease Models, AnimalHumansMedical OncologyPathologyAnimal modelsBiomedical researchCollaborationInterfaceVeterinary pathology

Identifiers

PMID38602524

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.