Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30425807›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench2018

False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience.

Bita Geramizadeh, Maryam Moughali, Atefeh Shahim-Aein, Soghra Memari, Ziba Ghetmiri, Alireza Taghavi, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Bita GeramizadehDepartment of Pathology, Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Maryam MoughaliDepartment of Pathology, Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Atefeh Shahim-AeinDepartment of Pathology, Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Soghra MemariDepartment of Pathology, Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Ziba GhetmiriDepartment of Pathology, Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Alireza TaghaviDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Shiraz, Iran.
Kamran Bagheri LankaraniHealth Policy Research Center, Shiraz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimIn this study we tried to find out the accuracy of biliary tract brushing cytology in our center as the largest referral center in the south of Iran.

backgroundCommon bile duct brushing cytology has been introduced as the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies. However, there have been controversial reports about the sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of this method in the English literature.

methodsDuring the study period (2012-2016) there has been 166 cases of common bile duct brushing cytology taken during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). One case has been excluded because of inadequate number of cells in the cytology smear. All the smears have been stained by routine cytologic stains and screened by cytotechnologists and diagnosed by expert cytopathologist. Final diagnosis by biopsy has been considered as the gold standard.

resultsAccording to the final histologic diagnosis as the gold standard, there were 22 false negative and 7 false positive cases. All of the false positive cases have been suspected cases in the background of primary sclerosing cholangitis. The most common final diagnosis of false negative cytologic diagnoses has been intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in which no malignant cell has been identified in the presence of adequate number of normal ductal epithelial cells.

conclusionCommon bile duct brushing cytology is the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary tract malignancies; however, having high specificity (90%), the sensitivity is low (56%). Cytologic diagnosis of biliary tract malignancies should be made with caution in the patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Also it is important to know that high false negative rate is present in common bile duct brushing cytology especially in the cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma without extension into extrahepatic ducts.

Indexed as

Brush cytologyCommon bile duct

Identifiers

PMID30425807
PMCPMC6204244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.