ArticleJournal of cytology
Endometrial Secrets Unmasked through Cytology 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
Background: Endometrial aspiration (EA) is an economic, painless technique on an outpatient basis. Present study aimed at cytological evaluation of EA for (a) cellular yield and morphology and (b) utility of cell block (CB) and cytocentrifuge (CC) techniques. Materials and Methods: EA samples were divided into two aliquots. Colorless samples were processed (1000 rpm × 6 min) for conventional smear (CS) and CC, both stained by Papanicolaou. Hemorrhagic samples were processed for CS and CB (paraffin embedding, hematoxylin-eosin stain). Results: Endometrial aspirates from January 2021 to January 2022 were included. Indications comprised abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB; 87), prolapse (eight), and infertility (two). Among 77 hemorrhagic aspirates, the yield was 85.7% by CS and 90.9% by CB. Among 20 colorless aspirates, the yield was 55% by CS and 65% by CC. The yield was 85.7%, 84.4%, and 83.3% with endometrial thickness 1-5, 6-10, and 11-15 mm, respectively. The yield was 83.9%, 50%, and 0% in AUB, prolapse, and infertility, respectively. CS morphology showed the categories of benign (93.5%) and atypia (6.5%). All cases with benign morphology correlated with CB and CC. CB offered architectural evaluation, while CC had a shorter turnaround time. Conclusion: Focusing on menorrhagia cases in secretory phase, nondilution of EA samples, and simultaneous endometrial biopsy can enhance cytology evaluation. In an era where "less should convey more," EA shows potential as a screening technique vis-à-vis invasive "dilatation-curettage" technique.
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.