Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23210005›Full record

ArticleAvicenna journal of medicine2011

Basics of cytology.

Mousa A Al-Abbadi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Avicenna journal of medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

1 author.

Mousa A Al-AbbadiDepartment of Pathology and Cytopathology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This overview is intended to give a general outline about the basics of Cytopathology. This is a field that is gaining tremendous momentum all over the world due to its speed, accuracy and cost effectiveness. This review will include a brief description about the history of cytology from its inception followed by recent developments. Discussion about the different types of specimens, whether exfoliative or aspiration will be presented with explanation of its rule as a screening and diagnostic test. A brief description of the indications, utilization, sensitivity, specificity, cost effectiveness, speed and accuracy will be carried out. The role that cytopathology plays in early detection of cancer will be emphasized. The ability to provide all types of ancillary studies necessary to make specific diagnosis that will dictate treatment protocols will be demonstrated. A brief description of the general rules of cytomorphology differentiating benign from malignant will be presented. Emphasis on communication between clinicians and pathologist will be underscored. The limitations and potential problems in the form of false positive and false negative will be briefly discussed. Few representative examples will be shown. A brief description of the different techniques in performing fine needle aspirations will be presented. General recommendation for the safest methods and hints to enhance the sensitivity of different sample procurement will be given. It is hoped that this review will benefit all practicing clinicians that may face certain diagnostic challenges requiring the use of cytological material.

Indexed as

Cytologyfine needle aspiration

Identifiers

PMID23210005
PMCPMC3507055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.