Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42213413›Full record

ArticleCytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology2026

Cytopathology Terminology Systems: European Federation of Cytological Societies Survey on Practice in Europe.

Ivana Kholová, Colleen Vrbin, Esther Diana Rossi, David Poller, Pinar Firat, Sevgen Onder, Beatrix Cochand-Priollet, Henrik Griesser, Guido Fadda, Marianne Engels and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Cytopathology Terminology Systems: European Federation of Cytological Societies Survey on Practice in Europe.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Ivana KholováFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4089-0450
Colleen VrbinAnalytical Insights LLC, Allison Park, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8742-0259
Esther Diana RossiDivision of Anatomic Pathology and Histology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
David PollerDepartment of Pathology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK.
Pinar FiratDepartment of Pathology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Sevgen OnderDepartment of Pathology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Beatrix Cochand-PriolletCochin APHP Centre, University Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Henrik GriesserDivision of Pathology and Cytodiagnostics, Laboratory Medicine Dr. Wisplinghoff, Cologne, Germany.
Guido FaddaDepartment of Human Pathology of the Adulthood and of the Developing Age "Gaetano Barresi", "Gaetano Martino" University Hospital, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Marianne EngelsInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Massimo BongiovanniUnilabs Pathology, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pio ZeppaDepartment of Medicine, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy.
Ashish ChandraDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ambrogio FassinaUniversity of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Philippe VielhMedipath and America Hospital of Paris, Paris, France.
Danijela Vrdoljak-MozeticDepartment of Pathology and Cytology, Clinical Hospital Centre Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2964-8885
European Federation of Cytological Societies National Representatives

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cytopathologists communicate with clinicians via cytopathology reports. For decades Papanicolaou Classes (Pap Classes), descriptive reports or surgical pathology terminologies have been used. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology has been the first organ-specific terminology system and since 2010, there has been a plethora of new reporting terminology systems. We aimed to map the implementation of reporting systems via a survey designed and led by the Scientific Committee of European Federation of Cytological Societies. The survey was available online between May 2022 and May 2023. For each classification, respondents were asked whether each was implemented, barriers to implementation and if there were data on national validation of the system. A total of 37 countries participated. Department-level implementation decision was the most reported (81.6%) with a strong involvement of national cytology societies. 65.8% of respondents indicated that Pap Classes were used prior to organ-specific terminologies and 60.5% of respondents used descriptive-only text prior to organ-specific terminologies. Overall half of the respondents used national or local systems (50.0%). The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology and the Bethesda System for reporting thyroid cytopathology have been implemented by most of the responding countries (92.1% and 94.7%, respectively). Overall, the most reported barriers to implementing terminologies were a lack of awareness of the details of the terminology (44.7%) and the difficulty in implementing the terminology (34.2%). Despite the variabilities in practices, regulations and legislations, cytopathology reporting systems are widely accepted and implemented in Europe.

Indexed as

CytodiagnosisTerminology as TopicEuropeFemaleHumansPapanicolaou TestSurveys and Questionnairescytologysurveyterminology

Identifiers

PMID42213413
PMCPMC13460511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.