ArticleHippokratia
Diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology in parotid gland lesions.
Article in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiparametric Ex Vivo Evaluation of Parotid Tumors: Feasibility and Preliminary Results.NMR in biomedicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Parotid Gland Swellings.Cureus · 2025Article
- Sporadic neurofibroma of facial nerve presenting as parotid gland tumor: a rare case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to estimate the fine needle aspiration cytology's (FNAC) diagnostic accuracy in differentiating neoplastic from inflammatory lesions (Q1) and malignant from their benign counterparts (Q2).
methodsWe present a retrospective case series covering a single University Hospital and six attending head and neck surgeons over eight years (January 2011 to July 2017). We concentrated on adults with clinically suspected parotid gland lesions. We offered all patients FNAC biopsy preoperatively, and the final diagnosis was established based on the findings of the final histology. The FNAC and histology results were cross-tabulated in a 2 x 2 contingency table, from which we calculated the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values.
resultsFrom 212 consecutive patients reviewed, and after excluding thirteen cases (8 %) of valid but non-diagnostic FNAC, 161 cases (50 females and 111 males) fulfilled set eligibility criteria. The most common diagnosis was Warthin tumors (53 patients, 34 %), followed by pleomorphic adenomas (52 patients, 33.5 %). The sensitivity and specificity of FNAC in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions and in segregating malignant from benign conditions were estimated to be as high as 50 % and 97 %, and 98 % and 93 %, respectively.
conclusionFNAC is moderately effective in differentiating non-neoplastic from neoplastic disease and highly accurate in selecting malignant lesions from benign ones. Although the lack of FNAC sensitivity can occasionally be problematic, it still comprises a valuable tool in salivary gland surgery. HIPPOKRATIA 2022, 26 (1):25-31.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37124281PMC10132389W4367600898What 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.