Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33863321›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2021

Comparison between two cell collecting methods for liquid-based brush biopsies: a consecutive and retrospective study.

Kristin Gaida, Lena Deuerling, Heinrich Neumann, Torsten W Remmerbach

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Micronuclei detection in oral cytologic smear: does it add diagnostic value?Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kristin GaidaDepartment of Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Section of Clinical and Experimental Oral Medicine, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstraße 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Lena DeuerlingDepartment of Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Section of Clinical and Experimental Oral Medicine, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstraße 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Heinrich NeumannMedical Care Centre for Histology, Cytology and Molecular Diagnostics, 52351, Düren, Germany.
Torsten W RemmerbachDepartment of Oral, Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Section of Clinical and Experimental Oral Medicine, Leipzig University Hospital, Liebigstraße 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. torsten.remmerbach@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Leipzig University · DECS Diagnostics · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study compares two different cell collectors, the Orcellex Brush (rigid brush) and the Cytobrush GT (nylon brush), using liquid-based cytology. A comparison of their obtainment procedures was also considered. The aim was to determine the diagnostic accuracy for detection of malignancy in oral brush biopsies. PICO-Statement: In this consecutive and retrospective study we had as population of interests, patients with oral lesions, the intervention was the brush biopsy with two different cell collectors and the control was healthy oral mucosa. The outcome of the study was to compare both cell collectors.

methodsFrom 2009 to 2018, 2018 patients with oral lesions were studied using the nylon brush (666 cases) and rigid brush (1352 cases). In the first cohort five smears per patient were taken with the nylon brush, while each patient received one smear with the rigid brush in the second cohort. These were further processed in a liquid-based procedure. Cytological evaluations were categorised into 'negative', which were considered as negative, whereas 'doubtful', 'suspicious' and 'positive' cytological results were overall considered as positive for malignancy in comparison to the final histological diagnoses. Additionally, the clinical expenditure for each collector was estimated.

results2018 clinically and histologically proven diagnoses were established, including 181 cases of squamous cell carcinomas, 524 lichen, 454 leukoplakias, 34 erythroplakias and 825 other benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity of the nylon brush was 93.8% (95% CI 91.6-95.5%) and 94.2% (95% CI 91.8-95.5%) respectively, whereas it was 95.6% (95% CI 94.4-96.6%) and 84.9% (95% CI 83.8-87.5%) for the rigid brush. The temporal advantage using the plastic brushes was 4×  higher in comparison to the nylon brush. The risk suffering from a malignant oral lesion when the result of the brushes was positive, suspicious, or doubtful was significantly high for both tests (nylon brush OR: 246.3; rigid brush OR: 121.5).

conclusionsBoth systems have a similar sensitivity, although only the rigid brush achieved a satisfactory specificity. Additional methods, such as DNA image cytometry, should also be considered to improve the specificity. Furthermore, the rigid brush proved to be more effective at taking a sufficient number of cells, whilst also being quicker and presenting less stress for the patient.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellMouth NeoplasmsBiopsyCytodiagnosisHumansRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBrush biopsyLiquid-based cytologyOral cancerSquamous cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID33863321
PMCPMC8052744
OpenAlexW3153432028

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.