Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33122953›Full record

ArticleCancer management and research2020

A Clinical Comparative Study of Two Different Endometrial Cell Samplers for Evaluation of Endometrial Lesions by Cytopathological Diagnosis.

Shulan Lv, Qing Wang, Yan Li, Lanbo Zhao, Yiran Wang, Xue Feng, Lu Han, Kailu Zhang, Panyue Yin, Huilian Hou and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer management and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Accuracy of cytological examination of Tao brush endometrial sampling in diagnosing endometrial premalignancy and malignancy.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. HypermethylatedFrontiers in oncology · 2022
    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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shulan Lv *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Qing Wang *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Yan Li *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Lanbo ZhaoHealth Science Center, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Yiran WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Xue FengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Lu HanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Kailu ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9252-4327
Panyue YinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Huilian HouDepartment of Pathology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Guizhi ShiAviation General Hospital of Beijing, Medical, Pathology Department of Aviation General Hospital of Beijing, Beijing, China.
Qiling LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3763-4456
First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNAviation General Hospital · CNXi'an Jiaotong University · CNYan'an University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCytopathology detecting for endometrial cancer is becoming accepted, and Tao Brush is the most widely used sampler for endometrial cells. This study aims to compare the effectiveness between Li brushes and Tao brushes for the diagnosis of endometrial lesions and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of endometrial cytology compared with histology.

methodsThere were 109 patients needing dilation and curettage (D&C) and 21 patients needing hysterectomies included from November 2017 to April 2018. Every patient was sampled by Tao brush and Li brush before D&C or hysterectomy performed. The cytological results were compared based on the gold standard histological results of D&C or hysterectomy.

resultsThe sensitivity of Li brush cytology for detecting endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia was estimated at 83.33%, specificity at 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) at 100%, and negative predictive value (NPV) at 98.02%, respectively. While for the Tao brush, it was 91.67% of sensitivity, 96.04% of specificity, 73.33% of PPV, and 98.98% of NPV, respectively. The kappa value was 0.767, which indicated a substantial agreement. Cytology by both two brushes had a lower insufficient sample rate (2.75% of Tao brush, 4.59% of Li brush) than did D&C (11.93%). DISCUSSION: Endometrial cytology is a reliable approach for evaluating endometrium with a lower insufficient sample rate. Cytology sampled by both Li brushes and Tao brushes has a high accuracy with histological diagnosis in detecting endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia. Combining social and economic benefits, the Li brush may be a better endometrial cell collector.

Indexed as

cytologydilation and curettageendometrial cancerLi brushTao brush

Identifiers

PMID33122953
PMCPMC7591233
OpenAlexW3093524784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.