Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30675499›Full record

ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2018

Outcomes of Different Methods for Analysis of Biliary Brush Cytology and of Factors Associated with Positive Diagnosis in an Age-Dependent Retrospective Review.

Mariana Costa, Jorge Canena, Luís Mascarenhas-Lemos, Rafaela Loureiro, Mário Silva, Diana Carvalho, Tiago Capela, Pedro Russo, Gonçalo Ramos, António Mateus-Dias and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. How to Brush Your Way into the Bile Duct.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2018
    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

13 authors.

Mariana CostaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Jorge CanenaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Luís Mascarenhas-LemosDepartment of Pathology, São José Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal.
Rafaela LoureiroDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Mário SilvaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Diana CarvalhoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Tiago CapelaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Pedro RussoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Gonçalo RamosDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
António Mateus-DiasDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.
Mário Ferraz-OliveiraDepartment of Pathology, São José Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Lisbon, Portugal.
Pedro Mota VeigaCurva de Gauss - Research, Training and Consulting, Canas de Senhorim, Portugal.
João CoimbraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Santo António dos Capuchos Hospital do Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Nova Medical School/Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsBrush cytology during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most frequently used strategy for obtaining a tissue sample from an indeterminate biliary stricture. A recent study reported that age is a factor associated with positive yields, but further analysis of how age influences the results was lacking. We aimed to evaluate clinical effectiveness of biliary cytology and prognostic factors for a positive outcome, especially age.

methodsThis study was a single-center, retrospective, clinical study of 77 consecutive patients who underwent brush cytology during ERCP to obtain a diagnosis of an indeterminate biliary stricture. We compared 2 routine cytology techniques: A (smear); B (centrifugation of the cytological material collected and the cut-off brush + cell block when sufficient amount of material was available). The data were collected aiming to compare the accuracy of the different techniques used and the prognostic factors affecting the outcome, with a particular focus on age. The yield for brush cytology was compared with the gold standard defined as either definitive histology or the long-term clinical course.

resultsThe overall accuracy of the 2 used methods was 75.3%. Sensitivity was 52.5%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 66.1%. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward accuracy for method B compared with method A (80.4 vs. 65.4%;

conclusionsIn this series, the accuracy of routine biliary brush cytology was not equal for all methods and ages; in particular, younger patients (below 69 years) tended to have a higher probability of a correct diagnosis.

Indexed as

AgeBiliary cytologyERCPPredictors of outcome

Identifiers

PMID30675499
PMCPMC6341321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.