Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33935385›Full record

ArticleJournal of cytology

Application of Indian Academy of Cytologists Guidelines for Reporting Serous Effusions: An Institutional Experience.

Reetu Kundu, Radhika Srinivasan, Pranab Dey, Nalini Gupta, Parikshaa Gupta, Manish Rohilla, Shruti Gupta, Amanjit Bal, Arvind Rajwanshi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cytology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Reetu KunduDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Radhika SrinivasanDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Pranab DeyDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Nalini GuptaDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Parikshaa GuptaDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Manish RohillaDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Shruti GuptaDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Amanjit BalDepartment of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Arvind RajwanshiDepartment of Cytology and Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, the Indian Academy of Cytologists (IAC) has published the guidelines for interpretation and reporting of serous effusions. Till date, there are no studies on its applicability.

aimsThe present study was carried out to assess the feasibility of applying the IAC reporting categories to effusions, determine the frequency, and provide an estimate of the risk of malignancy (ROM) for individual diagnostic categories. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll cases of serous effusion fluids reported in the year 2019 were retrieved from the archives and reassigned as per the IAC diagnostic categories. The clinical and histopathological follow-up information was obtained wherever possible.

resultsA total of 1340 effusion samples were received from 1085 patients. There were 561 (51.7%) males and 524 (48.3%) females. Majority were pleural (1066, 79.5%), followed by peritoneal (187, 14%) and pericardial (87, 6.5%) effusions. The age ranged from 7 months to 92 years. There were 35 (2.6%) samples in category 1 (non-diagnostic), 954 (71.2%) in category 2 (benign), 17 (1.3%) in category 3 (atypical), 59 (4.4%) in category 4 (suspicious for malignancy) and 275 (20.5%) in category 5 (malignant). The estimated ROM in serous effusion samples was 20% for category 1, 16.7% for category 2, 50% for category 3, 94.4% for category 4 and 100% for category 5.

conclusionsThe categorization of serous effusion cytology samples as per the IAC diagnostic categories and as per the reporting format developed by the IAC is feasible and the management recommendations are mostly appropriate.

Indexed as

Atypicalbenigneffusionmalignancyseroussuspicious

Identifiers

PMID33935385
PMCPMC8078616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.