ArticleJournal of microscopy and ultrastructure
Accuracy and Perception of an Origami-Based Paper Microscope When Compared to the Conventional Light Microscope in Oral Cytology.
Article in Journal of microscopy and ultrastructure. 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: Foldscope is an origami-based portable paper microscope, developed in 2014, that can provide up to 2000 times magnification. It has the potential use as a low-cost diagnostic alternative in areas with limited resources. Oral cancer screening camps rely on visual examination of the patients' oral cavity. In-field diagnosis of cytological smears can be very beneficial, although it requires more resources. Therefore, we designed a study to compare the accuracy of Foldscope in the identification of features in cytology smears, when compared with light microscope. Methodology: Two examiners with adequate experience evaluated 35 oral cytology smears. The Foldscope was used twice for evaluation by each examiner, with a gap of 15 days between the two evaluations. Both examiners also evaluated the same set of slides using a light microscope. Accuracy of identification of cells using Foldscope, when compared with the light microscope was evaluated. Interobserver agreement in the identification of various features was also determined using kappa statistics, for light microscope examination, and two Foldscope examinations. Results: We found that both examiners could identify epithelial cells accurately using the Foldscope. Mucous cells, inflammatory cells, and microorganisms could also be identified, with slightly lesser accuracy. Interobserver agreement was good in the light microscope. However, with the Foldscope, especially after the second sitting, the interobserver agreement was found to be comparably good. Conclusion: With adequate training and practice, Foldscopes could be valuable tools for rapid and immediate diagnosis of exfoliative cytology smears in mass oral cancer screening camps.
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.