ArticleEthiopian journal of health sciences2018
Cytological Smear and Cell Block Versus Tissue Biopsies in the Diagnosis of Malignant Tumours in Non-Gynaecologic Specimens.
Article in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of ancillary procedures on formalin liquid fixed aspiration cytologic samples: from minimum to maximum.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- The Impact of Oral Microbiome Dysbiosis on the Aetiology, Pathogenesis, and Development of Oral Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- An Immunohistochemical Expression of CK5/6, CK7, and CK20 on Cell Blocks in Metastatic Cervical Lymphadenopathy.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
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
backgroundCytological smear and cell block (CB) are routinely used to diagnose non-gynaecologic specimens. However, there is scanty information in the literature to compare cytological smear and CB with the corresponding tissue biopsies. This study is aimed at evaluating the accuracy of cytological smear and CB in the diagnosis of malignant tumours in non-gynaecologic specimens. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 70 malignant cases were subjected to cytological smear and CB. Corresponding histopathology was also included. The most frequent immunomarkers found between CB and tissue biopsies were also correlated. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false positive and false negative values were analyzed for each method.
resultsThe accuracy, sensitivity and positive predictive value for cytological smear were 92.8%, 100.0% and 92.9%, whereas for CB were 91.4%, 98.4% and 92.7%, respectively. In CB method, the accuracy, sensitivity and positive predictive value for CK7 were 88.9%, 91.7% and 95.6%, whereas for CK5/6 were 75%, 100% and 57.1%, respectively.
conclusionCytological smear and CB are very sensitive and accurate in the detection of malignant tumours in nongynaecologic specimens. Additional corresponding tissue biopsies should be re-evaluated.
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.