Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18214406›Full record

ArticleHNO2008

[Performance of conventional oral brush biopsies].

O Driemel, M Kunkel, M Hullmann, N Kleinsasser, R Staudenmaier, U Müller-Richter, T E Reichert, H Kosmehl

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HNO, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

O DriemelKlinik und Poliklinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Klinikum der Universität Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Deutschland. oliver.driemel@klinik.uni-regensburg.de
M Kunkel
M Hullmann
N Kleinsasser
R Staudenmaier
U Müller-Richter
T E Reichert
H Kosmehl
Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie · DEUniversity of Regensburg · DEHelios Klinikum Erfurt · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study evaluated the performance of oral brush biopsies using standard morphological analysis and haematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining for detecting oral squamous cell carcinomas and their respective precursor lesions PATIENTS AND

methodsBrush biopsies were obtained in 169 consecutive patients who underwent routine biopsies and histological examination for clinically suspicious oral lesions. Air-dried smears were processed by acetone fixation and HE staining. Cytological assessment used well-established criteria of atypia to classify the specimen as either "tumor negative" (no signs of atypia, no malignant cells) or "tumor positive" (malignant cells, any sign of atypia or doubtful cells).

resultsDespite a sufficient number of cells, a definite cytological diagnosis could not be established in six cases. According to the criteria specified above, these specimens were classified as "tumor positive." The cytological analysis identified 49 out of 62 oral malignancies (sensitivity 79%). Seven out of 107 benign lesions were classified as false positive (specificity 93%). The positive and negative predictive values were each 88%.

conclusionOral brush biopsies will identify only about 80% of oral malignancies when the smears are processed by routine HE stains and are analysed via standard morphological criteria. Thus, this technique should not be used for diagnostic proof or to exclude malignant cells in a lesion suspicious for cancer. However, oral brush biopsy provides a versatile back-up strategy to uncover the true nature of the disease if a lesion is clinically considered benign by mistake.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyCarcinoma, Squamous CellFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID18214406
OpenAlexW94641507

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.