ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound
"Clinical" cytology for endoscopists: A practical guide.
Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Value of Cytology in Pancreatic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Accuracy in Common Epithelial Pancreatobiliary Tumors and the Role of Cell Block Analysis.Iranian journal of pathology · 2025Article
- Stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Comparison of EUS-guided conventional smear and liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
- Elastography of the Pancreas, Current View.Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with EUS-FNA: The ROSE looks beautiful.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- What should be known prior to performing EUS exams? (Part II).Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
- Discriminating chronic pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer: Contrast-enhanced EUS and multidetector computed tomography in direct comparison.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical cytology was originally used by clinicians to provide rapid diagnosis. However, with advancing medical subspecialization, few clinicians interpret cytology themselves these days, for example, gynecologists, hematologists, urologists, and occasional gastroenterologist (mainly in Asian countries). Cytological assessment enjoyed a renaissance with the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Subsequently, pathologists, most of them more experienced in histology, had to take over. Recently, it has been shown that in-room cytology can be easily performed by the endoscopist themselves for initial evaluation of the quality of the EUS-FNA specimen and an initial diagnosis distinguishing benign or malignant cells. Bringing cytology back to the clinician has some advantages but does not substitute the professional cytopathologist. This report has written to lower the threshold for the clinician to find his way back to the microscope, which may improve both their diagnostic yield and assessment of EUS-FNA sample quality.
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.