Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28078439›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2017

Liquid-based versus conventional cytology of oral brush biopsies: a split-sample pilot study.

T W Remmerbach, N Pomjanski, U Bauer, H Neumann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Focus on Biomarkers for Screening.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T W RemmerbachSection of Oral Medicine, Department of Head Medicine and Oral Health, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. torsten.remmerbach@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
N PomjanskiInstitute of Cytopathology, Heinrich Heine University, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
U BauerInstitute of Pathology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstraße 26, Leipzig, Germany.
H NeumannInstitute of Cytopathology, Am Propsthof 3, 53121, Bonn, Germany.
Leipzig University · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this prospective split sample study was to evaluate the applicability of liquid-based cytology (LBC) of oral brush biopsies for detection of oral cancer.

methodsTwo different preparation techniques were investigated: the conventional transfer procedure to glass slides and the LBC preparation method. The obtainments of epithelial cells were performed five times with a nylon brush and transferred onto five glass slides. Additionally, the brushes, which were normally discarded, were stored in a fixative solution. Conventional slides and respective thin layers from a total of 113 cases were reviewed with both techniques.

resultsThin layers showed excellent morphology on a clear background, which allowed an accurate diagnosis. In contrast, the conventional glass slides showed significantly more blood contamination and cell overlapping. The sensitivity of conventional cytological diagnosis was 96.3%, the specificity archived 90.6%, the positive predictive value was 96.3% and the negative predictive value scored 90.6%. The sensitivity of the cytological diagnosis using thin layers archived 97.5%, the specificity was 68.8%, the positive predictive value revealed 88.76% and negative predictive value was 91.7%.

conclusionOur findings indicate that in oral cytology, LBC may replace other types of wet-fixed preparations using the full amount of collected cells, resulting in enhanced specimen quality archiving comparable values of diagnostic accuracy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LBC facilitates the cell collection due to simpler handling and less transfer errors by dentists and may improve the overall diagnostic accuracy of oral brush biopsies in future.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyCytodiagnosisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth NeoplasmsPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesBrush biopsyConventional cytologyLiquid based cytology (LBC)Oral cancer

Identifiers

PMID28078439
OpenAlexW2574468021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.