Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25006503›Full record

ArticleISRN oncology2014

Comparison of 3-tier cytological grading systems for breast carcinoma.

Dinisha Einstien, B O Parijatham Omprakash, Hemalatha Ganapathy, Sadaf Rahman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ISRN oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparative evaluation of various cytomorphological grading systems in breast carcinoma.Indian journal of medical and paediatric oncology : official journal of Indian Society of Medical & Paediatric Oncology
    Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Dinisha EinstienDepartment of Pathology, Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, No. 7, CLC Works Road, Chrompet, Chennai 44, India.
B O Parijatham OmprakashDepartment of Pathology, Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, No. 7, CLC Works Road, Chrompet, Chennai 44, India.
Hemalatha GanapathyDepartment of Pathology, Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, No. 7, CLC Works Road, Chrompet, Chennai 44, India.
Sadaf RahmanDepartment of Pathology, Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital, No. 7, CLC Works Road, Chrompet, Chennai 44, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Fine-needle aspiration cytology plays a major role in the primary diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Cytological grading of the smears can provide valuable prognostic information and aid in planning the management options. Aim. To evaluate various 3-tier cytological grading systems and to determine the best possible system which is reliable and objective for use in routine practice. Materials & Methods. 72 fine-needle aspiration smears of breast carcinomas were graded by two pathologists and compared with the histologic grading by Nottingham modification of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson method. Concordance and correlation studies were done. Kappa measurement of interobserver agreement was also done. Results. Robinson's method showed a better correlation (77.7%) and substantial Kappa value of agreement (κ = 0.61) with Bloom Richardson's histological grading method in comparison to the other methods, closely followed by Fisher's method. Fisher's method showed better interobserver agreement (84.7%, κ = 0.616) compared to the other systems. Conclusions. Robinson's method of cytological grading in fine-needle aspiration smears of breast carcinoma is simpler, multifactorial, and feasible, hence being preferable for routine use according to our study.

Identifiers

PMID25006503
PMCPMC3972913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.