SynthesisDiagnostic cytopathology2026
Cell Blocks and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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
Abstract
backgroundThe Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) is a classification system first released in 2018. It provides a standardized categorization for salivary gland lesions. Cell blocks can be prepared from fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) and can be utilized for the diagnostics of salivary gland lesions. This study aims to evaluate the distribution of the MSRSGC categories and the associated risks of malignancy (ROM) in salivary gland FNAs incorporating cell block preparations.
methodsA PubMed literature search was conducted between March 3 and May 20, 2025, to identify studies with both cell block and MSRSGC applications in salivary gland FNAs. Data on sample size and the ROM for individual MSRSGC categories were extracted into Microsoft Excel and subsequently analyzed using OpenMetaAnalyst.
resultsFive studies were identified with a total of 1132 FNA samples processed to cell blocks. The pooled distributions of samples in the present meta-analysis were 21.9% in non-diagnostic (ND), 6.4% in non-neoplastic (NN), 8.2% in atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 30.0% in benign neoplasm (BN), 8.0% in salivary gland neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential (SUMP), 1.9% in suspicious for malignancy (SM), and 19.4% in malignant (MN). The pooled ROMs from this meta-analysis was 25.3% in ND, 16.5% in NN, 26.3% in AUS, 2.0% in BN, 28.7% in SUMP, 84.8% in SM, and 97.7% in MN.
conclusionThe ROMs of the AUS and SUMP categories were lower than the compared meta-analyses. The cell block application utilizes architecture and ancillary studies, leading to better performance in indeterminate categories.
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.