ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Cytopathological evaluation of pericardial effusions: 192 cases from a tertiary-level healthcare center.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: There are many different benign and malignant etiologies of pericardial effusions (PEs), which can compress the heart and large vessels emerging from the heart and cause significant clinical findings. The aim of this study was to cytologically examine the underlying diseases causing PEs and to conduct detailed evaluations of underlying cancers in cases of malignant PE, both within the whole study population and according to sex. Materials and methods: All PE samples obtained between 2019 and 2024 were reevaluated and categorized as nondiagnostic, negative for malignancy (NFM), atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), suspicious for malignancy (SFM), or malignant according to the 2020 International System for Serous Fluid Cytopathology. Results: A total of 192 PE samples from 184 patients were analyzed, with 137 categorized as NFM (71.4%), 6 as AUS (3.1%), 5 as SFM (2.6%), and 44 as malignant (22.9%). In the NFM group, PE most often developed secondary to cardiac diseases or cardiac operations (61/137, 44.5%). In the malignant group, pulmonary carcinoma metastasis was most common within the whole population (54.5%) followed by breast carcinoma metastasis (15.9%). Lung carcinoma metastasis (69%) was most common among male patients, followed by gastric carcinoma metastasis (23%), and breast carcinoma (38.9%) followed by lung carcinoma metastasis (33.3%) were most common among female patients as the causes of malignant PE. Among patients who were followed for malignancy, malignant PE was found in 64.2% (43/67). In this study, PE had sensitivity of 95.7%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, negative predictive value of 98.5%, and accuracy of 98.9%. Conclusion: When PE develops in patients being followed for malignancy, there is an extremely high possibility of malignant PE secondary to pericardial metastasis. Cytological evaluation of PE, which has extremely high sensitivity and specificity, is of clinical importance in patient diagnosis and follow-up.
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.