ArticleJournal of cytology2014
Clinical audit of repeat fine needle aspiration in a general cytopathology service.
Article in Journal of cytology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe few studies on repeat aspiration focussed on accuracy of diagnosis following repeat. Numbers and documented reasons for repeat remain unaddressed.
aimTo study factors associated with requests for repeat fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). SETTINGS AND
designMetropolitan hospital, clinical audit. MATERIALS AND
methodsAudit of 5104 FNAC in 10 months. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Univariate, and multivariate binary logistic regression.
resultsSeven hundred and six patients (13.8%) were advised repeat aspirates. Three hundred and twelve of these were actually repeated (44.1%). Carryover of actually repeated aspirates to subsequent months averaged 10.8 (34.2%). Maximum numbers of repeat requests were from thyroid 76/415 (18.3%), followed by lymph node 310/1856 (16.7%), and from breast 86/716 (12.0%). Outcome of actually repeated aspirates were: Diagnostic 181/312 (58.0%), and non-diagnostic 131/312 (41.9%). Reasons for repeat were inadequate aspirates 370/706 (52.4%), non-diagnostic descriptive reports 309/706 (43.7%); in 27/706 (3.8%), no reason was mentioned.
conclusionsInadequate aspirates, non-diagnostic descriptive reports, and FNAC/FNAB from thyroid, lymph nodes, and breast contribute to repeats. We suggest steps to reduce the number of repeat aspirates to eliminate extra work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.