ArticlePloS one2015
When Is Rapid On-Site Evaluation Cost-Effective for Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy?
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Rapid On-Site Cytology Evaluation Cost-Effective in Navigational Bronchoscopy? The Challenge of Modeling Benefit in the Rapidly Evolving Landscape of Advanced Diagnostic Bronchoscopy.CHEST pulmonary · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Masses to Negate the Need for Rapid On-site Evaluation: A Randomized Control Trial.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Article
- Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE): A Microfluidic Approach.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of different pathologic methods for assessing tissue obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: a prospective study.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2021Article
- This 'Rose' Has no Thorns-Diagnostic Utility of 'Rapid On-Site Evaluation' (ROSE) in Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Accuracy of rapid on-site evaluation of endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspirates by respiratory registrars in training and medical scientists compared to specialist pathologists-an initial pilot study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for staging of non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of visualized surgery · 2018Article
- A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment.Endoscopy international open · 2017Review
- Comparison of 1869 thyroid ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsies between general surgeons and interventional radiologists.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2016Article
- Cell block samples from endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration provide sufficient material for ancillary testing in lung cancer-a quaternary referral centre experience.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) can improve adequacy rates of fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) but increases operational costs. The performance of ROSE relative to fixed sampling depends on many factors. It is not clear when ROSE is less costly than sampling with a fixed number of needle passes. The objective of this study was to determine the conditions under which ROSE is less costly than fixed sampling.
methodsCost comparison of sampling with and without ROSE using mathematical modeling. Models were based on a societal perspective and used a mechanistic, micro-costing approach. Sampling policies (ROSE, fixed) were compared using the difference in total expected costs per case. Scenarios were based on procedure complexity (palpation-guided or image-guided), adequacy rates (low, high) and sampling protocols (stopping criteria for ROSE and fixed sampling). One-way, probabilistic, and scenario-based sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which variables had the greatest influence on the cost difference.
resultsROSE is favored relative to fixed sampling under the following conditions: (1) the cytologist is accurate, (2) the total variable cost ($/hr) is low, (3) fixed costs ($/procedure) are high, (4) the setup time is long, (5) the time between needle passes for ROSE is low, (6) when the per-pass adequacy rate is low, and (7) ROSE stops after observing one adequate sample. The model is most sensitive to variation in the fixed cost, the per-pass adequacy rate, and the time per needle pass with ROSE.
conclusionsMathematical modeling can be used to predict the difference in cost between sampling with and without ROSE.
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.