Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40237827›Full record

ReviewHNO2026

[Individualization and standardization in head and neck pathology].

Andreas G Loth, Peter J Wild

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in HNO, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Andreas G LothUniversitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Klinik für Hals‑, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60450, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland. loth@med.uni-frankfurt.de.
Peter J WildUniversitätsklinikum Frankfurt, Dr. Senckenbergisches Institut für Pathologie und Humangenetik, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individualization and standardization are seemingly contradictory requirements in medicine. In the treatment of head and neck cancer, both terms have a direct influence on diagnostic procedures, which are usually carried out in pathology institutes. The current article examines the conflicting requirements arising from various technical analyses, regulatory requirements, structural changes due to digitalization, and the advent of personalized medicine. On the one hand, the goal is to promote interdisciplinary exchange by understanding the challenges and, on the other, to provide the otorhinolaryngologist with a practical understanding of the common and current pathological diagnostic tests. Using pathology as an example, it can be shown that standardization of procedures ultimately serves to improve individualized treatment. At the same time, however, the following challenges are also apparent: despite comprehensive regulations and a laboratory environment with digital support, standardization is very time consuming and costly. If similar standardization approaches are to be implemented in an operative environment such as, e.g., ENT surgery, the effort involved can be expected to be equivalent or higher due to the human factor.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsOtolaryngologyPractice Guidelines as TopicPrecision MedicineGermanyHumansBiomarkersComputational biologyDigital healthMedical informaticsPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID40237827
PMCPMC12799678

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.