ArticleJournal of cytology
Reclassification of Salivary Gland Aspirates Based on "The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytology": A Five-Year Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of cytology. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Milan System for reporting salivary gland cytopathology helps standardize reporting systems across institutions, improve communication between clinicians and pathologists and guide the clinical management of patients. Aims: This study was undertaken to evaluate the utility of the Milan system classification in cytology reporting. Settings and Design: The present study is a retrospective study conducted over a period of five years in tertiary care centre. Methods and Materials: All the cases of salivary gland aspirates were reviewed and reclassified into six diagnostic categories according to the Milan system of reporting salivary gland cytology (MSRSGC). Cytological diagnosis was correlated with the histopathological diagnosis wherever available. Results: A total of 258 cases were classified using the Milan system as non-diagnostic (20.9%), non-neoplastic (26.3%), atypia of undetermined significance (4.7%), neoplasm benign (37.5%), neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential (3.5%), suspicious for malignancy (0.4%), and malignancy (6.6%). Cytohistological discordance was noted among 8/76 cases (10.5%). The sensitivity and specificity of FNAC were 75% and 98.5%, respectively. The risk of malignancy was 14.2% for Category I, 9% for II, 50% for III, zero for IVA and IVB, and 83.3% for category VI. Conclusions: The new classification system helps pathologists to standardize reporting leading to better clinical and surgical management.
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.