Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8881920›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical pathology1996

Proliferation in the normal cervix and in preinvasive cervical lesions.

S Payne, N M Kernohan, F Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Biomarkers as surrogates for cancer development.Current oncology reports · 2000
    Review
  5. Review
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

3 authors.

S PayneDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Buildings, Aberdeen.
N M Kernohan
F Walker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo characterise further the proliferative compartment of the normal cervix and to document its alteration, if any, in the various grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), particularly changes to the basal epithelial layer; to hypothesise as to the diagnostic and biological significance of any observed differences.

methodProliferative compartments from 86 cervical biopsy specimens (10 normal, 11 with koilocytic change only, 12 CIN I, nine CIN II, and 44 CIN III) were determined using microwave antigen retrieval and a standard three-step Streptavidin biotin peroxidase immunocytochemical technique incorporating the MIB-1 monoclonal antibody (directed against the Ki-67 antigen). Immunoreactivity was assessed as occupying either the lower one third, lower two thirds or all three thirds of the squamous epithelium. Basal cell positivity was also quantitated.

resultsSpecimens without CIN showed a thin suprabasal proliferative compartment two to four cells thick. True basal positivity was infrequent. With increasing grade of CIN, the growth compartment stretched evermore superficially so that in lesions of CIN III almost the full thickness of epithelium was cycling. In all grades of CIN, basal cell proliferation was significantly increased.

conclusionsIn normal cervix, the parabasal layers represent the main proliferative pool with the basal layer providing a reserve. When CIN supervenes, this proliferative compartment expands commensurate with the grade of dysplasia and as basal turnover is increased specifically the intimate relation between epithelium and basement membrane might be disturbed, facilitating invasion. The diagnostic utility of these changes in growth compartments is limited.

Indexed as

BiopsyFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryKi-67 AntigenUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsKi-67 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID8881920
PMCPMC500613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.