ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Value of Cytology in the Evaluation of Malignant Pericardial Effusions: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case report: A rare case of gelatinous pericardial effusion in a COVID-19 positive breast cancer patient.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Clinicopathological and molecular characterization of non-small cell lung cancer with pericardial effusions.Cancer cytopathology · 2025Article
- Cardiac tamponade.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Review
- Multicolor flow cytometry on pericardial effusion for a prompt diagnosis and treatment of hematological malignancies with heart involvement.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pericardial effusions can be caused by diverse etiologies, including heart-related conditions, kidney failure, trauma, infections, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. This systematic review aimed to assess the role of cytology in identifying the most prevalent cancers related to malignant pericardial effusions (MPEs), the ability of cytology, compared to histology, to detect cancer while evaluating pericardial effusions, and the prognostic impact of MPEs. Four electronic databases were investigated using a predefined algorithm, and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We found that the most prevalent primaries associated with MPEs were lung (especially NSCLCs), breast, hematolymphoid, and gastrointestinal cancers. MPEs tended to be hemorrhagic rather than serous or serosanguinous and to occupy larger volumes compared to non-neoplastic effusions. In addition, cytology was shown to exhibit an enhanced ability to detect cancer compared to biopsy in most of the included studies. Lastly, the presence of an MPE was associated with poor prognosis, while survival depended on the specific cancer type detected. Particularly, prognosis was found to be worse when MPEs were caused by lung or gastric cancer, rather than breast or hematolymphoid malignancies. In conclusion, evidence suggests that cytologic evaluation has a significant diagnostic and prognostic impact in patients with MPEs.
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.