ArticleJournal of cytology
Conventional versus Liquid-based Cytology: "Man versus Machine".
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology.Health science reports · 2025Article
- New method for cytological evaluation using direct nipple discharge without aspiration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Liquid-based cytology in the era of multi-omics and artificial intelligence integration.CytoJournal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) can improve adequacy, monolayer quality with a clean background compared to conventional smears (CS). Aims and Objectives: The objective was to compare the quality and diagnostic yield of CS and LBC in routine cytological investigations. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study consisted of 306 samples (255 gynecological, 39 nongynecological, and 12 fine needle aspiration cytology [FNAC]) during a 2-year period (2019-2020). From each patient, two samples were collected in the same manner in the same sitting and processed by CS and LBC (ThinPrep® 2000, Hologic Inc.). Both CS and LBC were compared for adequacy, quality, representativeness, inflammation, hemorrhage, necrosis, preservation, reactive changes, organisms, atypia/dysplasia/malignancy, and preparation/screening time. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: No statistically significant difference was noted for adequacy, representativeness, reactive changes, preservation, and atypia/dysplasia/malignancy. CS was better in cellularity and diagnosis of inflammation and organisms, whereas LBC had a clean background and the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusions: CS was equivalent to LBC in adequacy, representativeness, reactive changes, and atypia/dysplasia/malignancy. Adequacy comparable to LBC can be achieved in CS by careful sample collection, processing, and screening by trained cytotechnologists. CS was better in detecting organisms and inflammation than LBC. The advantages of LBC were monolayer smear, clean background, and lesser screening time, but the demerit was higher cost and longer processing time. Therefore, LBC is best suited to those laboratories having high sample inadequacy rates, lack of competent cytotechnologists, and no financial constraints. Either man or machine, appropriate and adequate sample collection by trained personnel forms the cornerstone for ensuring adequacy in both CS and LBC.
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.