ArticleOncology letters2022
Clinicopathologic factors influencing the screening accuracy of oral cytology: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Oncology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of Liquid Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Mechanisms Underlying Negative p53 Immunocytochemistry in Oral Cytology:Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of oral brush liquid-based cytology for oral squamous cell carcinoma: a comparative study of cytological and histological diagnoses at a single center.BMC oral health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cytology is a simple and non-invasive screening method for oral cancer. However, this method is not yet routinely used by clinicians because of its high false negative rate (FNR) and due to lack of sufficient studies examining the factors for high FNRs. The present retrospective study aimed to compare the screening performance of conventional cytology (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) through histological validation, and to elucidate factors inducing false negative screening in oral cytology. Cytological specimens with histological examination and intraoral digital images of the lesion were retrospectively collected between January 2017 and December 2018 for CC and between October 2019 and September 2021 for LBC. Oral cytological screening was conducted based on the oral Bethesda system for oral cytology. Clinical subtypes were re-evaluated using intraoral digital images. The screening accuracy of oral cytology was calculated considering the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for detecting the malignant transformation of oral lesions. No statistically significant difference was noted in the inadequate rate between CC and LBC groups. For CC and LBC, the sensitivities were 60.9 and 59.2%, the specificities were 87.3 and 79.1%, the PPVs were 85.8 and 76.2%, and the NPVs were 63.9 and 63.2%, respectively. Thus, the screening accuracy was similar between methodologies. Among the clinicopathological factors investigated, histological diagnosis and cellularity contributed to false negative results. Homogeneous findings of oral epithelial dysplasia and the superficial growth of carcinoma
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.