ArticleIranian journal of pathology2022
Accuracy of Paris 2016 System for Non-invasive Diagnosis Bladder Malignancy.
Article in Iranian journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paired Urinary Cytology and Targeted FGFR3 S249C/R248C Mutation Detection in Urine from Patients with Bladder Cancer: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS) is a new method for evaluating urinary cytology designed to reduce unreproducible reports. The aim of this study was to reclassify and compare urinary cytology reports with TPS criteria to determine the frequency of unreproducible reports compared to the previous system. Methods: In this study, the laboratory electronic registration system analyzed patients' urine samples taken by voided or washing and brushing methods. The cytological evaluation was performed considering the previous system and TPS by a pathologist. The results of the two systems were compared, and the sensitivity and specificity of TPS were calculated. Results: Urine samples were taken from 876 patients. The mean age of patients was 63.36 ± 12.62. Comparing the routine classification system and TPS, it was observed that the number of atypical reports in the TPS system decreased by 12%, and all of these cases were downgraded to the negative group in the new classification. The sensitivity and specificity of TPS were 29.4% and 95.1%, respectively, if suspected malignancy and positive reports for malignancy were considered. Finally, if positive reports for malignancy were selected, sensitivity and specificity changed to 11.8% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: Although the TPS system has low sensitivity for the diagnosis of urothelial malignancies, due to its high specificity, it is possible to consider and use this classification for screening patients.
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.