ArticleCureus2021
Histopathological Account of Obstetrical and Gynecological Specimens: Retrospective Study at a Tertiary Care Center of Peshawar.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Histopathologic specimen examination of surgically isolated organs and tissues yields valuable information regarding a disease process and plays a vital role in the future management of a patient. Our aim was to account for the common diagnosis yielded from histopathological specimens of the obstetrics and gynecology department and to determine if all the obstetric and gynecological specimens should be routinely sent for histopathology. Methods A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at the histopathology unit of a tertiary care hospital in Peshawar. Data were acquired for all gynecological and obstetric specimens sent for histopathology for analysis to the histopathology unit during August 2018 and July 2019. Any sample that was not sent via surgical excision was excluded from the study. Results A total of 922 samples were sent for histopathological analysis in the tertiary care hospital. The mean age of patients who had their specimens sent for pathology was 40.78 ± 10.81 years. Most of the samples sent were of the uterus (458) and the age 31-50 years (270) had the highest proportion of histopathological specimens. Normal ovaries (64.4%) and fallopian tubes (78.8%) were the main diagnoses for these two specimens while a normal cervix (0.58%) was the least common diagnosis among samples sent for histopathology. Chronic cervicitis (92.4%) in cervix and secretory phase endometrium (30.1%) in the uterus were the other common diagnosis. All the other samples were infrequently sent. Conclusion Uterine specimens are the most common histopathological specimen sent followed by cervix and then fallopian tube. Fallopian tube and ovaries yielded the highest normal diagnosis. Cervix specimens must be biopsied. More data is needed for a certain consensus on the need for routine histopathology.
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.