ArticleBiomedicines2024
Optimal Volume Assessment for Serous Fluid Cytology.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. 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, 3 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the optimal volume of serous fluid needed for accurate diagnosis using The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (TIS), as well as to provide information on the distribution of serous effusion cases in the TIS categories (ND: non-diagnostic, NFM: negative for malignancy, AUS: atypia of undetermined significance, SFM: suspicious for malignancy, MAL: malignant) and relevant epidemiological data.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 2340 serous effusion cases (pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial) from two hospitals between 2018 and 2020 was conducted. TIS categories were assigned to each case, and for 1181 cases, these were correlated with the volume of the analyzed fluid.
resultsOur study found statistically significant differences in volume distributions between certain TIS categories. Statistically lower volumes were observed in NFM compared to MAL, in UNCERTAIN (ND, AUS, SFM) compared to both MAL and NFM, and in NOT MAL (ND, NFM, AUS, SFM) compared to MAL. However, these differences were not substantial enough to hold any clinical relevance.
conclusionsThis study suggests that while fluid volume may slightly influence the TIS category, it does not impact the diagnostic accuracy of serous effusion cytology. Therefore, the ideal serous effusion specimen volume can be defined solely by practical parameters.
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.