SynthesisCancer cytopathology2024
The Sydney system for lymph node FNA biopsy cytopathology: A detailed analysis of recent publications and meta-analysis and a proposal for the components of an ideal prospective study of a cytopathology reporting system.
Synthesis in Cancer cytopathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Sydney system for lymph node FNA biopsy cytopathology: A detailed analysis of recent publications and meta-analysis and a proposal for the components of an ideal prospective study of a cytopathology reporting system.Cancer cytopathology · 2024Pooled it
- The Atypical and Suspicious for Malignancy Categories of the WHO Reporting System for Lymph Node, Spleen, and Thymus Cytopathology: Review of their Diagnostic Utility, Limitations, and Clinical Impact.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Review
- Cytologic Diagnosis of Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Diagnostic Approach and Differential Diagnosis.Acta cytologica · 2026Review
- Review
- Utility of Sydney system for reporting the neck lymphadenopathy underwent real-time ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Sydney system for fine-needle aspiration biopsy of lymph nodes has five categories, stressing the role of correlation of cytopathology with clinical, ultrasound, and ancillary findings to achieve diagnosis. The five categories constitute a hierarchical system with increasing risk of malignancy from benign to atypical, suspicious, and malignant categories, which informs recommendations for further workup to achieve a final diagnosis as possible. This article analyzes 10 publications using the Sydney system and a meta-analysis of nine of these studies. The primary goal of the analysis is to ascertain the causes of the large ranges in risk of malignancy for the "atypical" and "inadequate" compared to "benign," "suspicious," and "malignant" categories, which were comparable to well-established reporting systems. Research protocols are proposed to improve future studies.
methodsPubMed literature search from January 2021 to December 2023 identified studies evaluating performance of the Sydney system.
resultsTen studies showed heterogeneity with clinical setting, study design, ultrasound use and rapid on-site evaluation, operator, cutoff points for "positive" cases, with inherent partial verification biases, resulting in a wide range of risk of malignancy, specificity, and sensitivity values.
conclusionAnalysis shows the large range is due to heterogeneity of the studies, which suffer from biases and variable statistical analysis that are ultimately included in any meta-analysis, detracting from the usefulness of the risk of malignancy derived by the meta-analysis. Components for ideal analyses of reporting systems are presented.
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.