ArticleJournal of natural science, biology, and medicine2015
Comparative analysis of detecting cervical lymph node metastasis with fine needle aspiration cytology.
Article in Journal of natural science, biology, and medicine, 2015. 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.
- Genetic predisposition and prediction protocol for epithelial neoplasms in disease-free individuals: A systematic review.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
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
objectivesWe correlated the results of cervical lymph node (LN) status by T-tumor size, N-nodal metastasis, M-distant metastasis (TNM) staging, and fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) in oral cancer patients to assess the discrepancy index (DI) between nodal metastasis (N) and FNAC results of cervicofacial LNs. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 63 patients (29 females and 34 males) aged from 30 to 85 years were included in our study. Cervical LN status through TNM staging and FNAC results were matched and DI was calculated.
resultsDI in case of nodal status was 64.10% and 43.47% for TNMN1 and N2, respectively, indicating that tendency for observation of positive result on FNAC increased from N1 to N2.
conclusionHence, we suggest that relying solely on clinical examination and routine diagnostic tests like FNAC may not be appropriate and additional diagnostic imaging modalities should be considered.
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.