ReviewCancers2024
Accuracy of Frozen Section Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Intraoperative Frozen Section Analysis with Final Pathological Outcomes in the Assessment of Myometrial Invasion in Endometrial Cancer Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Analysis of the Correlation between MRI Imaging Signs and Lymphovascular Space Invasion in Endometrial CancerCurrent medical imaging · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The early and accurate diagnosis of endometrial cancer is of paramount importance for the survival of these patients. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the available data regarding the accuracy of frozen section biopsy in diagnosing endometrial cancer. A thorough literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception up to January 2023, with the use of specific, relevant key terms. A quality evaluation for each study was performed with the QUADAS-2 tool, whereas a bivariate random-effect model was performed to generate a summary receiver-operated curve. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochrane Q and Higgins' I2 statistics. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies focused on atypical hyperplasia and those focused on endometrial cancer. The search yielded 47 studies, involving 7790 patients with endometrial cancer. Among them, only 11 could be included in the quantitative analysis. QUADAS-2 evaluation resulted in rather high quality among the included studies. Quantitative synthesis resulted in a pooled sensitivity of 0.863 and pooled specificity of 0.916. The AUC was 0.948, the Q statistic was 10.488 (10 df,
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.