Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
Guidelines for reporting histopathology studies
  1. N Knijn,
  2. I D Nagtegaal
  1. Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Professor I D Nagtegaal, Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen 6500 HB, The Netherlands; Iris.Nagtegaal{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

With the increasing amount of published papers and the need for evidence-based guidelines for diagnostics and treatment, it becomes of utmost importance to assess the quality of publications. The highest degrees of evidence in medicine are based on prospectively randomised clinical trials. In histopathology, trials are virtually non-existing and prospective studies are still relatively rare. The majority of our practice is based on retrospective studies, quite often from single centres.

Higher levels of evidence can be reached by systematic reviews of the existing literature and meta-analyses, that are increasingly present in the literature (figure 1).1 These meta-analyses are also important to provide information about the prognostic value of traditional factors, against which new diagnostic tools can be compared. However, …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Correction
    N Knijn I D Nagtegaal