Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42775377›Full record

ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2026

Evaluation of Diagnostic Value of Frozen Section for Ovarian Masses in a Referral Hospital in Central Part of Iran, with Focus on Borderline Cases.

Azar Naimi, Reihaneh Banihashemi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Azar NaimiReproductive Sciences and Sexual Health Research Center, Department of Pathology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Reihaneh BanihashemiMedical Student, Department of Pathology, Alzahra Hospital, Isfahan Medical University, Isfahan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Differentiating between benign ovarian masses and malignant ones is done using a variety of pathological examination methods. The two most prominent are frozen section diagnosis and permanent pathology diagnosis, the gold standard. We conducted this study with the aim of assessing the accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in ovarian masses. Materials and Methods: We studied different cases of ovarian masses with pathologic studies done using frozen section diagnosis and then compared the results with the final diagnosis using permanent studies. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were then calculated. Afterwards, borderline cases were grouped separately, and the aforementioned values were calculated for both borderline cases in isolation and overall cases. Results: In this study, 350 cases were included. The women from whom the samples were taken had an average age of 44.44 ± 15.15. Frozen section diagnosis underperforms in borderline cases, usually underdiagnosing them. In this study, we found the overall sensitivity = 82.3%, specificity = 98.9%, positive predictive value = 94.4%, and negative predictive value = 96.3%. However, if the borderline cases were excluded, they change to sensitivity = 82.2%, specificity = 99.3%, positive predictive value = 95.3%, and negative predictive value = 96.9%. Conclusion: Frozen section diagnosis is an accurate and reliable method that can rule out almost every benign ovarian mass. While it is notably weaker in the diagnosis of malignant and borderline tumors, its value as a diagnosis tool cannot be denied.

Indexed as

Borderlinefrozen sectionovarysensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID42775377
PMCPMC13597047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.