ReviewCytoJournal2021
Diagnostic pitfalls in effusion fluid cytology.
Review in CytoJournal, 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.
- Tri-Modal Cytology Excellence: Improving Body Fluid Diagnostic Performance.Iranian journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Article
- Mini-Invasive Pleural Probe-Based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for Malignant Pleural Effusion Diagnosis.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2025Article
- Multiple serous cavity effusion screening based on smear images using vision transformer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Immunocytochemistry on frozen-embedded cell block for the diagnosis of hematolymphoid cytology specimen: a straightforward alternative to the conventional cell block.Journal of hematopathology · 2024Article
- Serous fluid: Reactive conditions.CytoJournal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effusion fluid cytology has propensity for both false positives (in up to 0.5%) and false negatives (in up to 30%) results. Methodical approach from collection step to final interpretation stage could prevent both false positives and false negatives, if the interpreter is familiar with various factors responsible for diagnostic pitfalls in effusion fluid cytology. For this discussion, these factors are categorized as mentioned below: Surface tension-related alterations in cytomorphologyImproper specimen processingMany faces of reactive mesothelial cells, overlapping with those of cancer cellsProliferation-related featuresDegenerative changes, such as nuclear hyperchromasia and cytoplasmic vacuolationUnexpected patterns and unusual entities.
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.