ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Oral Brush Cytology and Toluidine Blue Staining in the Detection of Oral Epithelial Dysplasia: A Prospective Clinical Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly detection of potentially malignant oral disorders and oral squamous cell carcinoma plays a critical role in reducing disease progression and improving patient survival. The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of oral brush cytology and toluidine blue staining in detecting dysplastic and malignant oral lesions using histopathological examination as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective clinical study included 150 participants with clinically suspicious oral mucosal lesions. Oral brush cytology and toluidine blue staining were performed prior to incisional biopsy in all participants. Histopathological examination served as the reference standard for confirmation of dysplasia and malignancy. Diagnostic performance parameters, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and Cohen's kappa coefficient, were calculated and compared. Statistical analysis was performed, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsHistopathological examination revealed dysplastic or malignant changes in 102 lesions (68.0%). Oral brush cytology demonstrated sensitivity of 87.3%, specificity of 81.3%, PPV of 90.8%, NPV of 75.0%, and diagnostic accuracy of 85.3%. Toluidine blue staining showed sensitivity of 82.4%, specificity of 70.8%, PPV of 85.7%, NPV of 65.4%, and diagnostic accuracy of 78.7%. Oral brush cytology demonstrated significantly higher AUC (0.843 vs. 0.766; p = 0.038) and greater agreement with histopathology (κ = 0.672 vs. 0.527; p = 0.041) compared with toluidine blue staining. Combined positivity of both tests further improved agreement with histopathology (κ = 0.718).
conclusionWithin the limitations of the study, both oral brush cytology and toluidine blue staining demonstrated satisfactory diagnostic utility for identifying dysplastic and malignant oral lesions. However, oral brush cytology exhibited superior overall diagnostic performance and agreement with histopathology, suggesting its greater reliability as a non-invasive adjunctive screening tool for early detection of oral epithelial dysplasia and malignancy.
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.