Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20490328›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2010

Lung cancer cytology: potential pitfalls and mimics - a review.

Michael O Idowu, Celeste N Powers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Early stage lung cancer: pathologist's perspective.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Constitutional abnormality of nuclear membrane proteins in small cell lung carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019
    Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Michael O IdowuDepartment of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, VA 23298-0662, USA.
Celeste N Powers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cytology is increasingly being used in the evaluation of lung lesions. There are several potential pitfalls and mimics encountered in the evaluation of respiratory cytology specimens, making interpretation of respiratory cytology challenging. Familiarity with the mimics and the pitfalls is essential in avoiding a misdiagnosis because a false positive or false negative diagnosis may have significant management implications. This article focuses on the main classification of primary lung carcinoma - small cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma - with potential mimics discussed under each tumor category. We have attempted to separate pitfalls from common potential mimics and have suggested general rules when such pitfalls are encountered.

Indexed as

CytodiagnosisCytological TechniquesDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ErrorsFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsHumansLung Neoplasmsadenocarcinomaclinical historylung cancermimicsnon-small cell carcinomaPitfallspulmonary carcinomarespiratory cytologysquamous cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID20490328
PMCPMC2872744

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.