ArticleJournal of cytology
Intraoperative Decision-Making: A Comparative Analysis of Scrape Cytology vs. Frozen Section in Eighty Consecutive Samples.
Article in Journal of cytology. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intraoperative tumor evaluation is essential for optimizing surgical decision-making and can prevent the need for unnecessary radical surgeries. Although frozen section (FS) is the gold standard for such evaluations in advanced centers, scrape cytology presents a simpler, cost-effective alternative that could be beneficial in resource-limited settings. However, this technique is often overlooked in favor of FS due to greater pathologist confidence in FS. Materials and Methods: This study included 80 consecutive intraoperative samples from the Department of Pathology. Both scrape cytology and FS were independently evaluated, and results were compared with those of the final histopathology, taken as the gold standard. Statistical analysis assessed the concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for each method. Results: Scrape cytology and FS demonstrated a concordance rate of 87.5%, with sensitivity and specificity of 89.3% and 90.4%, respectively, for scrape cytology. Positive predictive value was 83.3%, and negative predictive value was 94%. Scrape cytology significantly reduced diagnostic time, averaging 10 min compared to 20 min for FS. Tissue-specific discrepancies were noted, particularly in lymph nodes and parathyroid cases. Conclusion: Scrape cytology proved to be a reliable, cost-effective, and time-efficient alternative to FS, especially in settings where FS is unavailable. Although FS remains optimal for architectural detail, scrape cytology provides high diagnostic accuracy and utility for intraoperative decision-making in resource-limited environments.
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.