ArticleCytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology2022
Diagnostic impact of safety protocols for processing peritoneal washing specimens during the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019: A comparative study from 195 cytological samples.
Article in Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology, 2022. 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.
- Diagnostic impact of safety protocols for processing peritoneal washing specimens during the global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019: A comparative study from 195 cytological samples.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 represents a major concern for health services worldwide, and has also induced major changes in cytopathology practice.
aimWe aimed to verify the diagnostic performance of cytological evaluation under a new safety protocol during the pandemic compared to the standard pre-pandemic procedure. We also aimed to assess how cytological diagnoses and sampling were impacted during the pandemic period compared to the pandemic-free period in 2019. MATERIALS AND
methodsCytological samples of peritoneal washings taken during the first 10 months of the pandemic emergency in Italy (March 11, 2020 to January 11, 2021) were compared to samples from the preceding 10-month time frame (May 11, 2019 to March 10, 2020).
resultsOne hundred ninety-five specimens were analysed in the present study. We observed no noticeable differences in cytological diagnoses during the pandemic period compared to the pre-pandemic period. The case numbers by diagnostic category for the pre-pandemic vs pandemic periods, respectively, were as follows: non-diagnostic, 0 vs 0 cases; negative for malignancy, 86 vs 52 cases; atypia of uncertain significance, 7 vs 1 cases; suspicious for malignancy, 0 vs 2 cases; malignant, 42 vs 4 cases.
conclusionWhile a consistent reduction in the number of cytological examinations has been observed during the COVID-19 period, our institutional safety protocol for processing cytological samples did not affect the diagnostic reliability of peritoneal washing cytology.
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.