ArticleGlomerular diseases
Pitfalls in the Pathological Diagnosis of Glomerular Diseases: Why Stop at One?
Article in Glomerular diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Renal pathologists face a number of challenges in evaluating kidney biopsies: one that is sometimes overlooked is the presence of multiple pathological processes in a single biopsy. Figuring out the interrelatedness (or lack thereof) of more than one form of renal abnormality can difficult. Several pitfalls in biopsy evaluation also await the unprepared diagnostician. This communication will examine these problems with illustrations from a single nephropathology practice dating back more than 3 decades. Summary: Paired processes in a biopsy can be related in many ways, including 2 lesions with a single root cause, 1 lesion that is a direct consequence of another, 1 lesion that results from the treatment of another, 2 lesions for which circumstantial evidence suggests a connection, and finally, 2 lesions occurring together entirely by chance. Failure to recognize a second lesion after a first has been identified can result from overintense focus on the first lesion, subtlety of the second lesion, unusual situations where the second lesion involves the absence rather than presence of something, instances where the first lesion obscures the second, and disease pairs where the findings for the second are a subset of those for first. Key Messages: Detection and understanding of multiple pathological processes in a biopsy and avoiding pitfalls in their analysis requires the use of all available diagnostic modalities and thorough examination of all tissue received. Careful attention should be paid to the clinical record, but with the recognition that it may not always be entirely accurate or predictive of what will be found in the biopsy. Above all, pathologists must resist the temptation to think that their work is done when they find the first abnormality.
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.