↓ Skip to main content

Clinical comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology of oral brush biopsies: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology of oral brush biopsies: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13005-018-0166-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constanze Olms, Nathalie Hix, Heinrich Neumann, Maryam Yahiaoui-Doktor, Torsten W. Remmerbach

Abstract

Exfoliative cytology performed on oral brush samples can help dentists to decide, whether a given oral lesion is (pre-) malignant. The use of non-invasive brush biopsies as an auxiliary tool in the diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions has gained renewed interest since improvements in cytological techniques such as the development of adjuvant diagnostic tools and liquid-based cell preparation techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of two different preparation techniques (cell collectors): the conventional transfer procedure to glass slides and the so-called liquid-based cytology preparation method. Cell smears were collected from 10 orally healthy individuals (mean age: 24 years) from the palatine mucosa at two different times (baseline and 4 weeks later). Slides of both techniques were stained by Giemsa (n = 40) and May-Gruenwald Giemsa (n = 40). The statistical analysis was performed with Excel. On specimen analysis, the liquid-based cytology showed statistically significant improvement compared to conventional glass sides (p < 0.001). Thin layers, which were performed by liquid-based cytology showed significantly better results in the parameters (p < 0.001): uniform distribution, cellular overlapping, cellular disformation, mucus, microbial colonies and debris. The conventional glass slides approach showed more cell overlapping and contamination with extraneous material than thin layers, which were performed by Orcellex® Brush cell collectors. Both techniques are diagnostically reliable. The liquid-based method showed an overall improvement on sample preservation, specimen adequacy, visualization of cell morphology and reproducibility. Liquid-based cytology simplifies cell collection due to easier handling and less transfer errors by dentists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 30 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 30 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,632,069
of 23,081,466 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#183
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,000
of 331,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,081,466 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.