Observational studyThe Indian journal of medical research2025
Review of tissue diagnosis & its role in cancer care: One year experience from a regional cancer care Institute of Eastern India.
Observational study in The Indian journal of medical research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives Review of tissue diagnosis is indispensable for any comprehensive tertiary cancer care centre, because a significant bulk of cases are primarily diagnosed peripherally and referred in a hub-and-spoke model. The primary objective of the study was to estimate the proportion of diagnostic discrepancies of the review cases over a period of one year and to identify the probable factors behind these discrepancies. Methods An observational descriptive retrospective cross-sectional study was planned in the department of Laboratory Medicine in a regional cancer institute of Eastern India encompassing all the cases undergoing review (both slides and tissue blocks) in the period between June 2023 and May 2024. Results Total 2551 cases were submitted for review within the study period. Among them 24 caused extreme diagnostic difficulty only because of poor processing. Total 171 cases among 2551 were found to carry significant diagnostic discrepancy (6.7%). A re-biopsy was advised in 69 cases, as essential. Interpretation & conclusions Although many a times the cost of review or the time consumed may pose a problem, a second opinion or a pathologic review is a patient safety mechanism, especially in the setting of cancer.
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.