ReviewHistopathology2026
The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology: what worked and what still needs to be improved.
Review in Histopathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paired Urinary Cytology and Targeted FGFR3 S249C/R248C Mutation Detection in Urine from Patients with Bladder Cancer: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of Urine Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Diagnosis of Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urine cytology has long been a challenging diagnostic modality due to its low sensitivity for low-grade urothelial neoplasms and high interobserver variability. The introduction of The Paris System (TPS) in 2016 marked a pivotal shift towards standardisation, with a primary focus on detecting high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). This review evaluates the impact of TPS on diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility. It also highlights the system's limitations, including issues with nuclear-to-cytoplasmic (N/C) ratio estimation, cellular degeneration, and the underrepresentation of HGUC variants. The second edition of TPS (TPS 2.0) addresses many of these concerns, offering refined criteria and visual aids. However, further improvements are needed, particularly in the integration of molecular diagnostics and artificial intelligence.
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.