ArticleGastroenterology research2025
Histologic Assessment in Ulcerative Colitis: A Survey of Pathologists' Practices and Perspectives.
Article in Gastroenterology research, 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
Background: Histologic remission is increasingly recognized as an important endpoint in ulcerative colitis (UC) management. Consensus guidelines on adopting histologic scoring systems in clinical practice are lacking in the United States. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pathologists, primarily located in North America, regarding histologic evaluation in UC. Methods: This study surveyed a group of pathologists who have completed postdoctoral medical training with demonstrated interest and involvement in the field of gastrointestinal pathology to evaluate their knowledge, practices, and perspectives on histologic assessment using standardized scoring systems in clinical practice in UC patients. The survey was hosted on an online platform, and responses were recorded anonymously. Results: A total of 57 responses were included in the analysis. Nearly two-thirds of pathologists acknowledged a lack of familiarity with the criteria for histologic remission as defined by the Nancy Index (NI), Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI), and Geboes score (GS). A majority (37/57; 65%) of pathologists did not support routine inclusion of a histologic score in pathology reports. The remaining 20/57 (35%) pathologists advocated for the incorporation of a standardized index, with the NI favored by 10/20 (50%) followed by the GS (n = 3; 15%) and the IBD-Distribution, Chronicity and Activity score (n = 3; 15%). Nearly a half (27/57; 47%) of the respondents acknowledged a favorable role for artificial intelligence in this setting. Conclusions: The current survey highlights the need for collaborative efforts among pathologists, gastroenterologists, and professional societies to establish a consensus guideline for routine histologic assessment in UC. Additional guidance from professional societies and research are required to integrate artificial intelligence-driven approaches into routine clinical practice.
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.