ArticleBMC clinical pathology2018
Pelvic radiotherapy for cervical cancer affects importantly the reproducibility of cytological alterations evaluation.
Article in BMC clinical pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deciphering radiation effects in pap smears: A case report and review of challenges.Oncoscience · 2025Article
- Cervical cytology: Radiation and other therapy effects.CytoJournal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundto evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytopathology according to previous knowledge of whether patients received radiotherapy (RT) treatment or not.
methodsThe study analyzed a sample of 95 cervix cytological slides; 24 with cytological abnormalities (CA) and presence of RT; 21 without CA and presence of RT; 25 without CA and without previous RT; 25 with CA and without previous RT. Two cytopathology (CP) evaluations of the slides were carried out. For the first CP re-evaluation, the cytotechnologist was blinded for the information of previous RT. For the second CP re-evaluation, the cytotechnologist was informed about previous RT. The results were analyzed through inter and intraobserver agreement using the unweighted and weighted kappa.
resultsPost radiotherapy effects were identified in 44.4% of cases that undergone previous pelvic RT. The agreement for RT status was 66.32% (unweighted K = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.13; 0.49, moderate agreement). The intraobserver agreement, regarding the cytological diagnoses, regardless of radiotherapy status, was 80.32% (weighted K = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.34; 0.68). In no RT group, the intraobserver agreement was 70% (weighted K = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.27;0.65) and in patients that received RT, the intraobserver agreement was 84.09% (unweighted K = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.01;0.74). The interobserver agreement between cytopathology result (abnormal or normal) in the group with RT, considering normal and abnormal CP diagnosis was 14.0% and 12.5%, respectively. There was no association between the cytological alterations and the median time between the end of RT and the cytological diagnosis.
conclusionThis study showed that RT has an important impact in CP diagnosis because the agreement, also in interobserver and intraobserver analysis, had high discrepancy in patients that received RT. Also, demonstrated that it is difficult to recognize the presence of RT in cytological slides when this information is not provided.
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.