ArticleJournal of cytology
Interobserver Reliability of Milan and Modified Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: An Institutional Experience.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2018, the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) was published, defining a diagnostic categorization scheme. However, this system of classification was criticized due to its suboptimal diagnostic accuracy and low interobserver reliability. For these reasons, the modified Milan system was recently proposed by a few authors claiming it to be more clinically reliable. The present study aimed to analyze the interobserver reliability of MSRSGC and modified MSRSGC. Methods: A total of 100 salivary gland fine-needle aspirations were reviewed over a 1-year period and classified by two independent observers according to MSRSGC and modified MSRSGC. Interobserver reproducibility was estimated using observed agreement and chance-corrected agreement (Cohen's kappa). Results: An overall chance corrected agreement of 0.37 (fair) was obtained for the original Milan system and 0.41 (moderate) for the modified one. In addition, subcategories of modified MSRSGC performed better than the MSRSGC in terms of interobserver reliability. Conclusion: The present study suggests that modified MSRSGC should be accepted worldwide as the clinical relevance of any categorization scheme requires diagnostic accuracy along with excellent interobserver reproducibility.
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.