ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
The role of exfoliative cytology in diagnosis of oral lesions.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
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
objectivesThe study aimed to evaluate the use of oral exfoliative cytology and highlight its limited effectiveness in diagnosing oral diseases. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 1000 consecutive cases of oral cytology were retrieved from the files of an Oral Pathology Service, comprising the period between January 2002 and December 2022. Patient data and clinical details of the lesions were collected, and all slides were reviewed. Categorical data were presented in absolute and relative frequency (%), while numerical data were expressed as the median with minimum and maximum values. The Chi-square (X
resultsMen constituted 64.6% (n = 646) of the cases, with a statistically significant predominance of white individuals (69.4%; n = 694). Of the 1000 evaluated cases, 87.8% (n = 878) were graded using Papanicolaou staining. Regarding provisional diagnoses, most clinicians (79.1%) suspected fungal lesions (n = 817). Analysis of the agreement between provisional and final cytological diagnoses revealed a statistically significant disagreement.
conclusionsThis work reinforces the limited use of exfoliative cytology in diagnosing oral lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Exfoliative oral cytology should be restricted to specific cases, particularly for diagnosing fungal disease, and occasionally when oral cancer is suspected, but a biopsy cannot be performed at that time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39641812What 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.