ArticleJournal of cytology
Liquid-based and conventional cytology for bronchial washings/bronchoalveolar lavages in the diagnosis of malignancy - An institutional experience.
Article in Journal of cytology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The usefulness of liquid-based cytology of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid combined with bronchial brush specimens in lung cancer diagnosis.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- Guidelines for diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy in adults: Joint Indian Chest Society/National College of chest physicians (I)/Indian association for bronchology recommendations.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2019Article
- The Indian Academy of Cytologists Guidelines for Reporting Serous Effusion (IACGRSE): An Interobserver Agreement Analysis.Journal of cytologyArticle
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
backgroundLiquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed as an alternative for conventional cytology (CC) in cervical smears. It is now increasingly being used all over the world for cervical cancer screening. However, its role and diagnostic accuracy in bronchial wash (BW)/bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens remains undetermined.
aimsTo assess and compare the diagnostic performance and accuracy of LBC with CC for detecting malignancy in bronchial specimens. SETTINGS AND
designThis was a retrospective analytical hospital-based study. MATERIALS AND
methodsBronchial specimens (BW/BAL) received over a period of 4.5 years were reviewed. The samples were processed by CC from June 2010 to September 2012 (2.25 years) and by LBC from October 2012 to December 2014 (2.25 years). Data were retrieved from the records of cytology laboratory and compared among both the groups. Detection rate for histologically or cytologically verified samples was calculated.
resultsA total of 559 cases verified by histological and cytological follow-up were evaluated. These included 247 CC cases and 312 LBC cases. The positive diagnostic rate for malignancy in CC was 28.6% whereas that for LBC was 32.9%. The negative diagnostic rates were 66.5% and 66.3% for CC and LBC, respectively. However, unsatisfactory rates had shown a good reduction from 4.4% in CC to 0.6% after LBC introduction. The smears showed more homogeneous distribution of cells with elimination of obscuring factors such as blood, inflammation, and mucus.
conclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy of LBC was slightly better than CC. The unsatisfactory rates showed reduction in LBC preparation. Thus, LBC is a viable alternative to CC and has the advantages of standardization of preparation with decrease in unsatisfactory rates.
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.