Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40469703›Full record

ReviewCytoJournal2025

Scope and limitations of intraoperative cytological methods of diagnosis of ovarian tumors.

Erna Ahsan, Saurabh Kumar Gautam, Ashok Singh, Arvind Kumar, Ravi Hari Phulware

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CytoJournal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Erna AhsanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2867-6983
Saurabh Kumar GautamDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Ashok SinghDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Arvind KumarDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Ravi Hari PhulwareDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mainstay of treatment for ovarian cancer is surgery. To prevent under-treatment and overtreatment and to choose the best surgical strategy for patients with ovarian tumors, intraoperative pathological assessment is essential. Frozen sections (FSs) have been historically used for intraoperative evaluation. In 1927, cytology was introduced by Dudgeon and Patrick as a new method of intraoperative pathological examination. Diagnosis can be made in minutes by making smears from the lesion, staining them quickly, and analyzing them under a microscope. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, using pertinent keywords in PubMed, and reviewing the data, it was discovered that intraoperative cytology (IOC) had been reported to have a diagnostic accuracy in ovarian lesions comparable to that of FSs. Few of the studies have confirmed that IOC has several benefits over FSs. There are drawbacks as well, which one should be mindful of. In this review, every aspect that is connected to IOC is covered in detail, along with the potential for raising the standard of IOC to make it more applicable in the present times.

Indexed as

Frozen sectionImprint cytologyIntraoperative cytological methodsOvarian neoplasmScrape cytology

Identifiers

PMID40469703
PMCPMC12134854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.