Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35117381›Full record

ReviewTranslational cancer research2020

Accuracy of preoperative sampling diagnosis for predicting final pathology in patients with endometrial carcinoma: a review.

David Lukanović, Miha Matjašič, Borut Kobal

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David LukanovićDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ljubljana University Medical Center, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Miha MatjašičCenter for Social Informatics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Borut KobalDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ljubljana University Medical Center, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana · SILjubljana University Medical Centre · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynecologic cancer. The most frequent symptom of this disease is postmenopausal bleeding. Diagnosis of EC must be histologically confirmed, and there are several methods for endometrial sampling to obtain cells or endometrial tissue. The first step in diagnosis should be ultrasound measurement of endometrial thickness, followed by endometrial sampling, which can be performed by office endometrial biopsy, hysteroscopic biopsy, or dilatation and curettage (D&C). The review in this article was carried out to present previously published studies, comprehensively evaluate method performance (i.e., overall accuracy of preoperative sampling in patients with endometrial carcinoma, and overall agreement on grade and histological subtype between preoperative endometrial sampling and final diagnosis), and determine which sampling method is most accurate on the basis of the statistical data in the studies analyzed. From the literature analyzed and examined, it can be concluded that preoperative endometrial sampling is not always the best predictor of final histology in EC and has its limitations. In surgical decisions based only on preoperative sampling, a biopsy should be made with caution, and it is necessary to take other parameters into account. Inadequate grading leads to suboptimal clinical management, mainly in early-stage tumors. This review showed that, although hysteroscopic biopsy was mainly associated with the highest tumor grade agreement, and although D&C showed the highest overall accuracy in detecting endometrial carcinoma, the data do not therefore reliably indicate which method yields the most precise results. The results of this review indicate that further studies on larger samples and with greater statistical power are needed to accurately define the role and type of preoperative sampling methods.

Indexed as

accuracybiopsyEndometrial cancer (EC)endometrial samplingsample size

Identifiers

PMID35117381
PMCPMC8798103
OpenAlexW3079201723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.