Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928534›Full record

ArticleCytoJournal2022

A comparative study of cytological processing techniques in hemorrhagic effusion.

Poovizhi Inbasekaran, Ramaswamy Anikode Subramanian

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CytoJournal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Poovizhi InbasekaranDepartment of Pathology, Vinayaka Mission Kirupananda Variyar Medical College and Hospital, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India.
Ramaswamy Anikode SubramanianDepartment of Pathology, PES Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Institute of Medical Sciences · INVinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospitals · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Fluids are one the most common specimens received in cytology laboratories. The presence of erythrocytes may obscure the cells in the smears, making the diagnosis, and identification of cells difficult. Many techniques are being used by laboratories to eliminate these erythrocytes. The present study was undertaken to improve the quality of cytology smears of hemorrhagic samples by comparing three different techniques, namely, Carnoy's fixative (CF), modified CF, and normal saline rehydration technique (NSRT) to hemolysis red blood cells (RBC) present in the smear background for better cytological assessment. The present study was a prospective study done over 1 year 6 months from November 2012 to March 2014, in the Department of Pathology in a Tertiary Care Rural Medical College. Materials and Methods: All hemorrhagic effusions received in the department of pathology were processed using CF, modified CF, and NSRT. The background of the smear and cytomorphological details with two different stains was analyzed. The Chi-square test was used to find out the association of different techniques in the reduction of RBC. Results: More than 60% reduction of RBCs in the smear was noted in 85.40%, 14.60%, and 15.60% by NSRT, modified CF, and CF, respectively. Staining was better and nuclear features were best preserved in NSRT. Conclusion: NSRT is the best, simple, and cheaper technique to lyse RBC in the hemorrhagic fluid. It also shows better staining and well-preserved cytomorphological features of the cell.

Indexed as

Carnoy’s fixativeHemorrhagic effusionNormal saline rehydration technique

Identifiers

PMID35928534
PMCPMC9345103
OpenAlexW4285009232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.