ArticleBMC health services research2014
Profile of usage of a reference diagnostic service on oral pathology: a 10-year evaluation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concordance between clinical and histopathologic diagnosis and an audit of oral histopathology service at a Nigerian tertiary hospital.The Pan African medical journal · 2019Article
- The use of oral and maxillofacial pathology services by general pathologists and their attitude towards it in Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2017Article
- Audit of Oral Histopathology Service at a Nigerian Tertiary Institution over a 24-Year Period.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2017Article
- Questionnaire-based survey regarding the opinion of general pathologists on the need for oral pathology services.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
- Spectrum of Oral and Maxillofacial Tissue Biopsies at the Foremost Tertiary Institution in The Gambia: A Retrospective Review.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
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
backgroundDespite the professional and academic relevance of the Brazilian oral pathology diagnostic laboratories, no information about their usage profile is available in the English literature. The objective of the present study is to report data about the histopathological and immunohistochemical exams performed in a Brazilian regional reference laboratory of oral pathology, as well as its main users.
methodsInformation about all histopathological exams performed between 2002 and 2012 was retrieved from the files of the Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Service of the School of Dentistry of Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Data collected included: 1) requestor of exam; 2) diagnosis classification; and 3) immunohistochemical tests. Descriptive statistical analyses were done.
results13,522 histopathological exams were performed, mean 1,229/year. The Public Health System of the city of Belo Horizonte was the main requestor of exams (77.13%), followed by private professionals (19.26%), and other cities (2.03%). Most lesions were considered benign (12,599/ 93.17%), with 854 malignant lesions (6.32%). 469 immunohistochemical tests were performed; 324 (69.08%) were from benign diagnosis, and 145 (30.92%) from malignant diagnosis. The most used antibodies were against S100, vimentin, smooth muscle actin, actin muscle specific HHF-35, and pan-cytokeratin AE1/AE3.
conclusionsPublic Health System is the major user of the diagnostic service on oral pathology in our institution. Most diagnoses were of benign lesions, although many malignant lesions were detected. Immunohistochemistry was particularly important in solving challenging cases.
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.