ArticleScientific reports2025
New method for cytological evaluation using direct nipple discharge without aspiration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Nipple aspirate fluid as a proximal breast liquid biopsy platform: advancing precision risk management in breast cancer.Clinical proteomics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional smear cytology (CSC) is a specific method used for breast tumor diagnosis in patients with nipple discharge. However, CSC tends to miss diagnose or even misdiagnose due to contaminating blood cells and other impurities. Thus, it is critical to develop more accurate and sensitive methods for clinical evaluation. Using nipple discharge collected directly from patients without aspiration, we performed liquid-based cytology (LBC) to analyze 111 collected samples for cytological evaluation for the first time. Following centrifugation to remove blood cells and protein contaminants, the sample of each nipple discharge was analyzed by light microscopy. In parallel, CSC was performed for comparison. Our results showed LBC has better diagnostic sensitivity than CSC (40.00% vs. 22.22%, [Formula: see text] = 6.636, P = 0.01). The specificity was improved (LBC 100% vs. CSC 95.2%) and area under the curve was also enhanced (AUC
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.