ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Revealing the missing links in the chain of relevant information from the clinicians to pathologists.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To evaluate the adequacy of demographic, clinical, and specimen-related information provided to the histopathology laboratory. Method: Total 400 biopsy requisition forms were studied retrospectively for the presence and absence of 20 different variables. This cross-sectional and single-centric study was conducted in a tertiary care setting in Peshawar Pakistan in year 2024. Data was collected in Microsoft Excel and analyzed with SPSS v.22. Frequencies, percentages, and mean percentage of the documented variables were determined. Scoring the documented variable as one and the undocumented variable as zero, RFs were scored out of a total score of 20 and mean score was calculated. Results: Only the name was written on 100% of forms, followed by MRN (95.5%), and the investigation required (91.25%). However, only 36% and 35.75% of forms contained the patient's age and gender respectively. Essential information like clinical history, specimen nature, and site of biopsy were provided on 82.25%, 27.5%, and 50.25% of RFs respectively. Names of the requesting authorities appeared only on 24% forms. No form contained all the 20 variables. The mean percentage of all the documented variables came out to be 39.76%. On scoring, the minimum score was three while the maximum score was 15. The mean and standard deviation of the scores was 7.95±2.74. Conclusion: Doctors provided the patient identifiers adequately but clinical history and specimen-related data were not adequate. Also, the requesting doctors did not provide their own information on the RFs.
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.