ArticleJournal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on cytology: specimen adequacy in fine-needle aspiration of palpable head and neck masses.
Article in Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- COVID-19's Shadow: The Effect of COVID-19 on Cytopathology Specimens Received at an Academic Laboratory in Central South Africa.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026Article
- Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary: A Diagnostic Work-Up.The oncologist · 2024Article
- Does ROSE matter? Evaluation of final diagnostic, PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, and molecular testing yields of CT-guided lung biopsies performed before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of the American Society of CytopathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAt our institution, palpation-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is performed by the cytopathology service on an outpatient basis at the request of otolaryngologist surgeons. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of COVID lockdown measures on our FNA service with specific focus on adequacy rates. MATERIALS AND
methodsAll palpation-guided FNA performed in 2019 to 2020 were identified in our pathology database. Adequacy rates were compared for 3 time periods in 2020: pre-COVID, lockdown, and post-lockdown.
resultsIn 2019, 121 FNAs were performed with 98% (119 of 121) obtained by pathology and only 2% (2 of 121) obtained by surgeons. In 2020, 89 FNAs were performed with 45% (40 of 89) collected by pathologists and 55% (49 of 89) by surgeons. During the pre-COVID period of 2020, 27 FNAs were collected, 85% (23 of 27) by pathologists, 8.7% of these (2 of 23) were nondiagnostic. Of the 4 FNAs performed by surgeons, all were positive for malignancy. During COVID lockdown all 24 FNAs were performed by surgeons with a 50% (12 of 24) nondiagnostic rate. Post-lockdown, with FNA referrals still below pre-COVID levels, surgeons performed 55.3% (21 of 38) of FNAs with 28.6% (6 of 21) non-diagnostic, while pathology performed 44.7% (17 of 38) with an 11.8% (2 of 17) nondiagnostic rate.
conclusionsOur FNA service noted significant changes in 2020 as a result of the COVID pandemic. Nondiagnostic rates were significantly increased in 2020 compared with 2019, primarily due to a shift to majority surgeon-performed palpation-guided FNA in the absence of cytopathology service during the lockdown period.
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.