ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
A critique to the article "Pina PSS, Mendes AT, Correa L, Coracin FL, de Sousa SCOM. The role of exfoliative cytology in diagnosis of oral lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Dec 6;29(1):2. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06080-9. PMID: 39641812."
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectiveThis letter critiques the study by Pina PSS et al., titled "The role of exfoliative cytology in the diagnosis of oral lesions," published in Clinical Oral Investigations (doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06080-9 ). The study aimed to evaluate the utility of oral exfoliative cytology and highlighted its limited effectiveness in diagnosing oral diseases. MATERIALS AND
methodsAmong 1000 cases, the authors misclassified prosthetic stomatitis (denture stomatitis) as a distinct clinical entity separate from candidiasis, despite its fungal etiology. This classification approach could compromise the accuracy of exfoliative cytology.
resultsIn 817 cases (81.7%), clinicians provisionally diagnosed fungal lesions, with significant disagreement between provisional and cytological diagnoses. However, the absence of histological examination as a gold standard precludes evaluating the accuracy of both "clinical examination alone" and "exfoliative cytology." Thus, the disagreement lacks actionable clinical implications.
conclusionThe authors advocated to restrict the utilization of exfoliative oral cytology particularly for diagnosing fungal disease, and occasionally when oral cancer is suspected. On the contrary, we consider that exfoliative oral cytology adds little value to a thorough patient anamnesis and clinical examination in fungal disease diagnosis, and may be proposed in rare cases. Its primary utility lies in assessing the malignant potential of oral mucosal lesions rather than fungal or viral infections. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings reveal the need to enhance clinicians' skills in provisional diagnosis rather than focusing on the limitations of exfoliative cytology. Concluding that oral cytology has limited applications in oral disease diagnosis, as the study suggests, appears unwarranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40839282What 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.