ArticleIranian journal of pathology2026
Tri-Modal Cytology Excellence: Improving Body Fluid Diagnostic Performance.
Article in Iranian journal of pathology, 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
Background & Objective: Cytological examination of effusion fluids is a valuable diagnostic tool. In India, conventional smear preparations are widely used, but they are often limited by poor cellularity, overlapping cells, and difficulty distinguishing malignant cells from reactive mesothelial cells. Cytospin and cell block techniques overcome these limitations by improving cellular distribution, preservation, and morphology. This study evaluates the merits and demerits of conventional smear, cell block, and cytospin methods in effusion cytology. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted over 18 months in the Department of Pathology in a tertiary health care center. A total of 170 body fluids and urine samples were processed by conventional smear, cell block, and cytospin techniques for comparison. IHC was done for selected malignancy cases in cell block preparation. Results: Cytospin (51%) and cell block (46%) yielded superior background clarity compared with conventional smear (3%). Cellular yield was better with cell block (62%) and cytospin (36%) than conventional smear (2%). Morphology of cells was better preserved in cytospin (54%) than cell block (45%) and conventional smear (1%). Distribution of cells seemed to be better in cytospin (52%) than cell block (43%) and conventional smear (5%). Conclusion: Cytospin provides better morphology, background, and distribution of cells compared with conventional smears. Cell block excels in cellularity, while conventional smears remain limited by poor quality with low cellularity, high degeneration, and poor distribution of cells, making cell block and cytospin more effective for effusion cytology.
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.