• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Invited commentary-WHO Classification of Tumours: How should tumors be classified? Expert consensus, systematic reviews or both?

作者信息

Uttley Lesley, Indave Blanca Iciar, Hyde Chris, White Valerie, Lokuhetty Dilani, Cree Ian

机构信息

School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

World Health Organization, Classification of Tumours Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

出版信息

Int J Cancer. 2020 Jun 15;146(12):3516-3521. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32975. Epub 2020 Apr 2.

DOI:10.1002/ijc.32975
PMID:32170735
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7818407/
Abstract
摘要
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6fda/7818407/b0c04344388f/IJC-146-3516-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6fda/7818407/b0c04344388f/IJC-146-3516-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6fda/7818407/b0c04344388f/IJC-146-3516-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Invited commentary-WHO Classification of Tumours: How should tumors be classified? Expert consensus, systematic reviews or both?特邀评论——世界卫生组织肿瘤分类：肿瘤应如何分类？专家共识、系统评价还是两者皆用？
Int J Cancer. 2020 Jun 15;146(12):3516-3521. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32975. Epub 2020 Apr 2.
2
A new series of Invited Reviews on WHO tumor classification.世界卫生组织肿瘤分类新系列特邀综述。
Int J Cancer. 2020 Jun 15;146(12):3243. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32983. Epub 2020 Apr 2.
3
[Standards, Options and Recommendations: a multidisciplinary program to promote evidence-based oncology].[标准、选项与建议：一项促进循证肿瘤学的多学科计划]
Bull Cancer. 2001 Jun;88(6):601-4.
4
Delivering consensus from the Asian Oncology Summit 2009.传达2009年亚洲肿瘤学峰会的共识。
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Nov;10(11):1029-30. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70324-9.
5
Oncology treatment recommendations can be supported only by 1-2% of high-quality published evidence.肿瘤治疗建议仅能得到1%至2%的高质量已发表证据的支持。
Cancer Treat Rev. 2005 Jun;31(4):319-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2005.04.001.
6
ESMO clinical recommendations: a practical guide for medical oncologists.欧洲肿瘤内科学会临床建议：肿瘤内科医生实用指南
Ann Oncol. 2007 Nov;18(11):1759-63. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm362. Epub 2007 Oct 5.
7
Guidance on the creation of evidence-linked guidelines for COIN.关于为社区获得性感染性肺炎（COIN）制定基于证据的指南的指导意见。
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1999;11(1):28-32. doi: 10.1053/clon.1999.9005.
8
[Foreward].[前言]
Onkologie. 2013;36 Suppl 2:1. doi: 10.1159/000348561.
9
COVID-19 and cancer: do we really know what we think we know?COVID-19 与癌症：我们真的了解我们自以为了解的吗？
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul;17(7):386-388. doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-0394-y.
10
Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST): new guidelines.实体瘤疗效评价标准（RECIST）：新指南
Med Pediatr Oncol. 2001 Jul;37(1):1-3. doi: 10.1002/mpo.1154.

引用本文的文献

1
Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians.用于改善关于进展为癌症低风险病变的沟通的首选标签和语言：对患者和医生的定性访谈
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 2;15(1):e087484. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087484.
2
Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Leukaemia.骨髓增生异常综合征和白血病中的间充质干细胞
Biomedicines. 2024 Jul 26;12(8):1677. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines12081677.
3
Exploring the Genomic Landscape of Hepatobiliary Cancers to Establish a Novel Molecular Classification System.

本文引用的文献

1
Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?是时候挑战系统评价高于叙述性综述这种虚假的等级制度了？
Eur J Clin Invest. 2018 Jun;48(6):e12931. doi: 10.1111/eci.12931. Epub 2018 Apr 16.
2
The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review.团队在进行系统评价中的影响。
Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 1;6(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x.
3
STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.《STARD 2015诊断准确性研究报告指南：解释与详述》
探索肝胆癌的基因组格局以建立一种新型分子分类系统。
Cancers (Basel). 2024 Jan 11;16(2):325. doi: 10.3390/cancers16020325.
4
Seeing the random forest through the decision trees. Supporting learning health systems from histopathology with machine learning models: Challenges and opportunities.透过决策树审视随机森林。利用机器学习模型助力基于组织病理学的学习型健康系统：挑战与机遇。
J Pathol Inform. 2023 Nov 4;15:100347. doi: 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100347. eCollection 2024 Dec.
5
Overview on Aneuploidy in Childhood B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.儿童 B 细胞急性淋巴细胞白血病非整倍体概述。
Int J Mol Sci. 2023 May 15;24(10):8764. doi: 10.3390/ijms24108764.
6
Highlights on U.S. FDA-approved fluorinated drugs over the past five years (2018-2022).过去五年（2018-2022 年）美国食品和药物管理局批准的含氟药物亮点。
Eur J Med Chem. 2023 Aug 5;256:115476. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115476. Epub 2023 May 13.
7
Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses.研究优先级制定过程缺乏系统性——证据综合的范围审查。
Syst Rev. 2022 Dec 23;11(1):277. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02149-2.
8
Understanding the use of evidence in the WHO Classification of Tumours: a protocol for an evidence gap map of the classification of tumours of the lung.理解世卫组织肿瘤分类中证据的应用：对肺癌肿瘤分类的证据差距图的制定方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Oct 11;12(10):e061240. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061240.
9
Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) and adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC), the same or different entities?黏液表皮样癌（MEC）和腺鳞癌（ASC），是相同的实体还是不同的实体？
Mod Pathol. 2022 Oct;35(10):1484-1493. doi: 10.1038/s41379-022-01100-z. Epub 2022 Jul 23.
10
The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: Myeloid and Histiocytic/Dendritic Neoplasms.世界卫生组织血液淋巴肿瘤分类第五版：髓系和组织细胞/树突状肿瘤。
Leukemia. 2022 Jul;36(7):1703-1719. doi: 10.1038/s41375-022-01613-1. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799.
4
What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.在卫生政策与实践中，为基于证据的决策对研究证据进行快速审查的最佳方法有哪些：一项快速审查。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Nov 25;14(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7.
5
The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.冗余、误导性及存在冲突的系统评价和Meta分析的大量产出。
Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210.
6
Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?回顾文献，系统综述有多系统？
Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):685-94. doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0288-3. Epub 2016 Apr 5.
7
Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda.快速回顾峰会：概述与研究议程的启动
Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 26;4:111. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0111-6.
8
Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.透明报告个体预后或诊断的多变量预测模型（TRIPOD）：解释和说明。
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73. doi: 10.7326/M14-0698.
9
Consensus development for healthcare professionals.医疗保健专业人员的共识发展。
Intern Emerg Med. 2015 Apr;10(3):373-83. doi: 10.1007/s11739-014-1156-6. Epub 2014 Nov 28.
10
Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?作为作者的领域专家：对系统评价和荟萃分析是有帮助还是有危害？
BMJ. 2012 Nov 1;345:e7031. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7031.