ReviewPathologica2026
Standardisation of histologic reporting in eosinophilic oesophagitis: Expert recommendations.
Review in Pathologica, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in understanding eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), leading to the refinement of diagnostic criteria and the development of evidence-based management guidelines. Nevertheless, despite the central role of histology in both diagnosis and disease monitoring, significant variability remains in histopathological reporting across institutions and among pathologists.This study seeks to provide recommendations for standardised histological reporting in EoE. To this end, a multidisciplinary panel of gastroenterologists and pathologists convened to review current practices and address persistent challenges in histologic assessment. Through an extensive literature review and critical appraisal of existing scoring systems, the panel reached consensus on both essential and desirable histological features for routine reporting, including eosinophil counts, additional inflammatory parameters, and fibrostenotic changes.
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.