ArticleJournal of cytology
The Indian Academy of Cytologists Guidelines for Reporting Serous Effusion (IACGRSE): An Interobserver Agreement Analysis.
Article in Journal of cytology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The Indian Academy of Cytologists published Guidelines and categories for Reporting Serous Effusions (IACGRSE) in 2020 to improve consistency and reproducibility of fluid cytology reporting and to guide patient management. Aims: To evaluate category-wise agreement while using IACGRSE 2020 categories. To analyze interobserver agreement among participants with different level of training and years of experience. Settings and Design: A retrospective interobserver variability study. Methods and Material: Study was done with four participants: an expert cytopathologist and three cytopathology fellows with varying experience. Fluid smears from 60 cases with clinical and/or radiological evidence of malignancy were categorized into one of the five IACGRSE 2020 categories. The interpretations of expert cytopathologist were taken as standard. Statistical Analysis Used: Interobserver agreement was analyzed using Kappa statistics. Results: Previous cases without definitive category got classified into "Atypical cells NOS" (3.33%) and "Atypical cells, Suspicious of Malignancy" (15%). Agreement analysis for IACGRSE 2020 categories showed better concordance for inadequate (I), malignant (V), and benign (II) categories. The range of Kappa for interobserver agreement of fellows was fair to substantial (range 0.1692-0.7249). The participant with substantial diagnostic agreement with expert (κ = 0.729, 88.3%) had the most experience. Causes of major discordance were pertaining to paucity and distribution of cells, and to misinterpretation of reactive mesothelial cells. Conclusions: IACGRSE 2020 categories and participants' experience were important determinants in classifying the effusion fluid cytology smears and interobserver agreement; emphasizing the need to use IACGRSE2020, and sufficient time and training required for accurate diagnosis of fluid specimens.
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.