SynthesisCancer cytopathology2026
Navigating the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology in pericardial effusion: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer cytopathology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (TIS) provides a standardized framework for classifying serous fluid cytology into five diagnostic categories: nondiagnostic, negative for malignancy, atypical, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant. Although TIS has been widely adopted for pleural and peritoneal fluids, its application in pericardial effusion cytology remains limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of TIS in pericardial effusion samples and estimate the associated risk of malignancy for each category.
methodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between 2013 and 2023 were identified through a comprehensive PubMed search. Eligible studies applied TIS to pericardial effusion cytology. The analysis excluded case reports, case reviews, abstracts, comparative studies, and non-English publications. Furthermore, the authors omitted studies that did not explicitly categorize pericardial fluid samples using the TIS categorization. Ten studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 2976 pericardial fluid samples.
resultsThe pooled distribution across TIS categories were: nondiagnostic (2.9%), negative for malignancy (60.2%), atypical (5.4%), suspicious for malignancy (2.4%), and malignant (23.4%). Risk of malignancy estimates based on histologic confirmation were: 10.8% for nondiagnostic, 8.7% for negative for malignancy, 34.0% for atypical, 64.1% for suspicious for malignancy, and 78.6% for malignant categories.
conclusionsTIS effectively stratifies pericardial effusion cytology samples by malignancy risk. The progressive increase in the risk of malignancy across categories supports its diagnostic utility. However, substantial heterogeneity, particularly in the negative for malignancy and malignant categories, highlights the need for standardized reporting and further prospective validation of TIS.
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.