ArticleDiagnostic cytopathology2026
The Practice of Cytopathology in India: Insights From a 2025 Nationwide Survey.
Article in Diagnostic 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cytopathology is a widely practiced, low-cost diagnostic modality in India. However, nationwide data on infrastructure, contemporary practices, and use of ancillary techniques remain limited. We conducted a nationwide survey to describe current practice patterns and identify existing gaps. A cross-sectional online questionnaire (Google Form) was shared amongst practicing pathologists in India from June 12, 2025 to July 15, 2025. The data collected included laboratory type, specimen workload, staining, cell-block preparation, ancillary testing, adoption of standardized reporting systems, turnaround time (TAT), and use of digital pathology. Descriptive statistics were generated. Of 235 respondents, 84.7% (199/235) reported having a dedicated cytopathology laboratory; 130 (55.3%) were from teaching hospitals. FNAC remains widely practiced throughout the country: 72.8% of FNACs are performed by pathologists and 37% of centers receive > 2000 FNAC cases annually. Cell blocks were prepared in 72.3% (170/235) of centers; ancillary techniques were available in 37.9% (89/235). Standardized reporting systems were used by 80.9% (190/235) respondents, and 50.2% routinely performed ROSE. Only 10.2% had access to whole-slide imaging and 2.6% reported use of AI tools. A TAT of ≤ 24 h was followed in 46.8% (110/235) centers. Significant differences across center types were observed for reporting patterns, accreditation, ancillary testing, and quality assurance practices (p < 0.05). Cytopathology services in India are widespread but heterogeneous: infrastructure, ancillary testing, and digital adoption vary significantly with center type. Nation-wide efforts to standardize reporting, strengthen training in specimen triage, and expand accreditation and EQAS participation are essential to improve uniformity and quality of services.
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.