8 research outputs found
A New Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology: A Delphi Study to Define Levels of Evidence in Tumor Pathology
Copyright \ua9 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. The hierarchy of evidence is a fundamental concept in evidence-based medicine, but existing models can be challenging to apply in laboratory-based health care disciplines, such as pathology, where the types of evidence and contexts are significantly different from interventional medicine. This project aimed to define a comprehensive and complementary framework of new levels of evidence for evaluating research in tumor pathology-introducing a novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology collaboratively designed by pathologists with help from epidemiologists, public health professionals, oncologists, and scientists, specifically tailored for use by pathologists-and to aid in the production of the World Health Organization Classification of Tumors (WCT) evidence gap maps. To achieve this, we adopted a modified Delphi approach, encompassing iterative online surveys, expert oversight, and external peer review, to establish the criteria for evidence in tumor pathology, determine the optimal structure for the new hierarchy, and ascertain the levels of confidence for each type of evidence. Over a span of 4 months and 3 survey rounds, we collected 1104 survey responses, culminating in a 3-day hybrid meeting in 2023, where a new hierarchy was unanimously agreed upon. The hierarchy is organized into 5 research theme groupings closely aligned with the subheadings of the WCT, and it consists of 5 levels of evidence-level P1 representing evidence types that merit the greatest level of confidence and level P5 reflecting the greatest risk of bias. For the first time, an international collaboration of pathology experts, supported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has successfully united to establish a standardized approach for evaluating evidence in tumor pathology. We intend to implement this novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology to map the available evidence, thereby enriching and informing the WCT effectively
A New Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology: A Delphi Study to Define Levels of Evidence in Tumor Pathology
The hierarchy of evidence is a fundamental concept in evidence-based medicine, but existing models can be challenging to apply in laboratory-based health care disciplines, such as pathology, where the types of evidence and contexts are significantly different from interventional medicine. This project aimed to define a comprehensive and complementary framework of new levels of evidence for evaluating research in tumor pathology-introducing a novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology collaboratively designed by pathologists with help from epidemiologists, public health professionals, oncologists, and scientists, specifically tailored for use by pathologists-and to aid in the production of the World Health Organization Classification of Tumors (WCT) evidence gap maps. To achieve this, we adopted a modified Delphi approach, encompassing iterative online surveys, expert oversight, and external peer review, to establish the criteria for evidence in tumor pathology, determine the optimal structure for the new hierarchy, and ascertain the levels of confidence for each type of evidence. Over a span of 4 months and 3 survey rounds, we collected 1104 survey responses, culminating in a 3-day hybrid meeting in 2023, where a new hierarchy was unanimously agreed upon. The hierarchy is organized into 5 research theme groupings closely aligned with the subheadings of the WCT, and it consists of 5 levels of evidence-level P1 representing evidence types that merit the greatest level of confidence and level P5 reflecting the greatest risk of bias. For the first time, an international collaboration of pathology experts, supported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, has successfully united to establish a standardized approach for evaluating evidence in tumor pathology. We intend to implement this novel Hierarchy of Research Evidence for Tumor Pathology to map the available evidence, thereby enriching and informing the WCT effectively.The overall project, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and beneficiaries (German Heart Centre Munich, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III) are funded by the European Commission (HORIZON grant no. 101057127). R.C. and F.C. are funded by UK Research and Innovation. S.H. has received research funding or honoraria from Roche, BMS, Merck, Sysmex, Thermo, Volition, Trillium, Medica, and Instand and is a founder of SFZ BioCoDE and CEBIO. P.H.T. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca.S
A case report of successful splenic artery embolization for atraumatic splenic rupture secondary to Epstein Barr virus infection in a haemodynamically unstable patient
Splenic rupture in haemodynamically unstable patients has traditionally been managed with splenectomy. This case report discusses the successful management of atraumatic splenic rupture, a rare but life-threatening complication of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, in a hemodynamically unstable patient. The patient, diagnosed with infectious mononucleosis (IM) secondary to EBV, presented with severe abdominal pain and a syncopal episode. Imaging revealed an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade III splenic injury, which was subsequently upgraded to a grade IV injury on repeat imaging. The patient's condition deteriorated even with initial resuscitation, leading to splenic angioembolization. The procedure was successful and the patient was discharged after 5 days. This case highlights the efficacy of splenic artery embolization (SAE) in haemodynamically unstable patients with atraumatic splenic rupture, particularly in centers with interventional radiology resources, offering an alternative to splenectomy and its associated complications
Validity of St Gallen risk categories in prognostication of breast cancer patients in Southern Sri Lanka
Moving Forward on Tumor Pathology Research Reporting: A Guide for Pathologists From the World Health Organization Classification of Tumors Living Evidence Gap Map by Tumour Type Group
\ua9 2024 The AuthorsEvidence-based medicine (EBM) can be an unfamiliar territory for those working in tumor pathology research, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about how to undertake an EBM approach to planning and reporting histopathology-based studies. In this article, reviewed and endorsed by the Word Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer\u27s International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research, we aim to help pathologists and researchers understand the basics of planning an evidence-based tumor pathology research study, as well as our recommendations on how to report the findings from these. We introduce some basic EBM concepts, a framework for research questions, and thoughts on study design and emphasize the concept of reporting standards. There are many study-specific reporting guidelines available, and we provide an overview of these. However, existing reporting guidelines perhaps do not always fit tumor pathology research papers, and hence, here, we collate the key reporting data set together into one generic checklist that we think will simplify the task for pathologists. The article aims to complement our recent hierarchy of evidence for tumor pathology and glossary of evidence (study) types in tumor pathology. Together, these articles should help any researcher get to grips with the basics of EBM for planning and publishing research in tumor pathology, as well as encourage an improved standard of the reports available to us all in the literature