ReviewCureus2025
Reliability of Frozen Section Biopsy in Detecting Endometrial Pathologies: A Systematic Review of Sensitivity and Specificity.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometrial pathologies, ranging from benign hyperplasia to carcinoma, present significant diagnostic challenges in gynecologic practice. Frozen section (FS) biopsy, a rapid intraoperative histopathological evaluation method, is widely used for surgical decision-making, but its diagnostic reliability remains debated. This systematic review evaluates the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of FS biopsy in detecting endometrial pathologies compared with final histopathology. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase up to July 2025. Fifteen studies meeting predefined eligibility criteria (e.g., comparative design, sufficient diagnostic data) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Data on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and concordance rates were extracted and synthesized narratively due to methodological heterogeneity. Among the 15 studies, FS biopsy exhibited high specificity and variable sensitivity. Concordance with final histopathology was strong for invasive carcinomas but poor for complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH). Reported accuracy ranged from 43.47% to 97%, with higher reliability for high-grade tumors and myometrial invasion. Limitations included sampling errors and pathologist-dependent variability. FS biopsy is highly specific for detecting endometrial malignancies and valuable for intraoperative guidance, particularly when gross lesions are present. However, its limited sensitivity for CAH and early-stage cancers necessitates caution. Integration with preoperative imaging and standardized protocols may optimize its use. Final paraffin-embedded histopathology remains the gold standard for definitive diagnosis.
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.