ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Factors Influencing the Discordancy Between Intraoperative Frozen Sections and Final Paraffin Pathologies in Ovarian Tumors.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Misdiagnosis of Endometrioid Borderline Ovarian Tumors by Intraoperative Frozen Section Pathology: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.The American journal of case reports · 2026Review
- Intraoperative cytologic evaluation for ovarian tumors : Utility in low resource settings and a roadmap for adoption.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Review
- Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumors: a case series.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Intraoperative frozen section in gynaecology cancers with special reference to ovarian tumours: time to "unfreeze" the pitfalls in the path of the Derby horse of Oncology.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Protein Glycosylation as Biomarkers in Gynecologic Cancers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo retrospectively investigate the pre-operative clinical factors and ultrasonographic features that influence the accuracy of the intraoperative frozen section (IFS) of ovarian tumors. PATIENTS AND
methodsWomen with ovarian tumors that underwent IFS in one tertiary medical center were recruited from January 2010 to December 2018. Demographic and clinical data of these women were retrieved from medical records in the hospital's centralized database.
resultsA total of 903 ovarian tumors were enrolled, including 237 (26.2%) benign, 150 (16.6%) borderline tumor, and 516 (57.2%) malignant. The overall accuracy of IFS among all specimens was 89.9%. The sensitivities of IFS in diagnosing borderline tumors (82.0%) and malignant tumors (88.2%) were lower than in diagnosing benign tumors (98.7%, p <0.001, Z-test). The specificity of diagnosing malignant tumors (99.7%) was significantly higher than that of diagnosing benign tumors (94.7%, p <0.001, Z-test). The group with discordant IFS and final paraffin pathology (FPP) had younger age (47.2 ± 14.0
conclusionsIFS has good accuracy in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. We recommend more frozen tissue sampling for sonographic multicystic tumors in premenopausal women to improve the accuracy of IFS.
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.