ArticleDiagnostic pathology2020
Clinical study on primary screening of oral cancer and precancerous lesions by oral cytology.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening of Lip and Oral Cavity Cancers or Potentially Malignant Disorders (PMD) by Frontline Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Pooled it
- Current Trends in Diagnosis and Early Monitoring of Oral Cavity Cancer: Techniques and Biomarkers.Cancers · 2026Review
- The Role of an Herbal Preparation in Enhancing the Efficacy of Basic Therapy in Patients with Periodontitis: Evaluation of Clinical, Microbiological and Cytomorphometric Parameters.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association Between Urinary Cotinine and Whole-Slide Digital Cytomorphometric Alterations in the Oral Mucosa of Tobacco Smoke-Exposed Cats.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Training high-performance deep learning classifier for diagnosis in oral cytology using diverse annotations.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Deep multiple instance learning versus conventional deep single instance learning for interpretable oral cancer detection.PloS one · 2024Article
- Micronuclei detection in oral cytologic smear: does it add diagnostic value?Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Evaluation of oral brush liquid-based cytology for oral squamous cell carcinoma: a comparative study of cytological and histological diagnoses at a single center.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Cytomorphometric Analysis of Oral Buccal Mucosa of Dental Colleges' Students in Sulaimani City.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinicopathologic factors influencing the screening accuracy of oral cytology: A retrospective cohort study.Oncology letters · 2022Article
- Effective deep learning for oral exfoliative cytology classification.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Importance of Cytopathologic Diagnosis in Early Cancer Diagnosis in Resource-Constrained Countries.JCO global oncology · 2022Review
- AI performance in oral cytology for differentiating poorly defined tumor cells from reactive atypia.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
- Utility of Indigenous Cytology Technique in the Diagnosis of Oral Cavity Lesions using Normal Saline as a Processing Fluid: A Comparative Study.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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was conducted to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral-based cytology and liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods.
methodsHistological diagnoses of 251 cases were classified as negative (no malignancy lesion, inflammation, or mild/moderate dysplasia) and positive [severe dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)]. Cytological diagnoses were classified as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM), oral low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (OLSIL), oral high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (OHSIL), or SCC. Cytological diagnostic results were compared with histology results.
resultsOf NILM cytology cases, the most frequent case was negative [LBC n = 50 (90.9%), conventional n = 22 (95.7%)]. Among OLSIL cytodiagnoses, the most common was negative (LBC n = 34; 75.6%, conventional n = 14; 70.0%). Among OHSIL cytodiagnoses (LBC n = 51, conventional n = 23), SCC was the most frequent (LBC n = 31; 60.8%, conventional n = 7; 30.4%). Negative cases were common (LBC n = 13; 25.5%, conventional n = 14; 60.9%). Among SCC cytodiagnoses SCC was the most common (LBC n = 16; 88.9%, conventional n = 14; 87.5%). Regarding the diagnostic results of cytology, assuming OHSIL and SCC as cytologically positive, the LBC method/conventional method showed a sensitivity of 79.4%/76.7%, specificity of 85.1%/69.2%, false-positive rate of 14.9%/30.7%, and false-negative rate of 20.6%/23.3%.
conclusionsLBC method was superior to conventional cytodiagnosis methods. It was especially superior for OLSIL and OHSIL. Because of the false-positive and false-negative cytodiagnoses, it is necessary to make a comprehensive diagnosis considering the clinical findings.
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.