ArticleJournal of cytology
A Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance and Cytomorphologic Features Between Newly Developed WellPrep
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Whereas liquid-based cytology (LBC) is often the preferred method in gynecological and non-gynecological cytopathology compared to conventional preparation, it does have several limitations. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and specific cytomorphologic characteristics of the newly developed WellPrep Materials and Methods: A total of 178 body cavity effusion samples were collected, which were divided and further processed using both WP and SP methods. The LBC slides of the cases were independently evaluated regarding their cytomorphologic features by three pathologists. Among them, the diagnosis of 66 cases (42.6%) was confirmed as non-neoplastic or malignant using a combination of histopathological, clinical, and/or radiological follow-up. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic concordance and differences in selected cytomorphologic features between the two LBC methods. Results: WP demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to SP, with a concordance rate of 75.7% (kappa = 0.659; Spearman's Conclusion: WP offers comparable slide quality and diagnostic accuracy with SP in serous effusion cytopathology. However, more research using larger patient cohorts would provide more evidence regarding WP.
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.