Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25763344›Full record

ArticleAnalytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam)2014

A comparative and evaluative study of two cytological grading systems in breast carcinoma with histological grading: an important prognostic factor.

Pinki Pandey, Alok Dixit, Subrat Chandra, Swarn Kaur

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Pinki PandeyDepartment of Pathology, U. P. Rural Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Saifai, Etawah 206301, India.ORCID 0000-0002-8521-7588
Alok DixitDepartment of Pharmacology, U. P. Rural Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Saifai, Etawah 206301, India.
Subrat ChandraDepartment of Pathology, RML Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Swarn KaurDepartment of Pathology, BPS Medical College, Khanpur, Sonepat, Haryana, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCytonuclear gradings in the breast carcinoma raise the level of FNA reportage and improves patient management. Our aim was to evaluate and compare two cytological grading methods (Robinson's and Mouriquand's) in breast carcinoma and correlate it with Nottingham modification of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) histological grading. MATERIALS AND

methods30 cytologically proven cases of infiltrating ductal carcinoma were graded cytologically and histologically. Cytograding was done by Robinson's and Mouriquand's methods (grades I to III) followed by comparison of the two methods. Cytogradings were correlated with SBR grading method. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and concordance and discordance rates were evaluated.

resultsAn overall concordance of 76.66% between cytogradings, of 83.33% between Robinson's method and SBR, and of 66.66% between Mouriquand's method and SBR was seen. Robinson's method correlated best with SBR in all the three nuclear grades. Robinson's method showed a diagnostic accuracy of 90% with 91.30% sensitivity while Mouriquand's method had an accuracy of 76.66% with 95.65% sensitivity. The specificity by Mouriquand's method was quite low (14.28%) as compared to Robinson's method (85.71%).

conclusionComprehensive cytological grading of breast cancer by Robinson's method seems better because of more objective set of criteria, easy reproducibility, and specificity.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastFemaleHumansNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25763344
PMCPMC4334028

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.