ArticleActa cytologica2022
Effects of Rapid On-Site Evaluation on Diagnostic Accuracy of Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration.
Article in Acta cytologica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Change in Practicing Cytopathologists' Team on Risk of Malignancy in a Retrospective Single-Centre Project of 652 Thyroid Nodules: A Quality Assurance Project.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026Article
- Additive diagnostic value of liquid‑based preparation and conventional smears in Bethesda I thyroid nodules.American journal of clinical pathology · 2026Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Cytopathology Artificial Intelligence.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- The Driver Role of Pathologists in Endocrine Oncology: What Clinicians Seek in Pathology Reports.Endocrine pathology · 2023Review
- Article
- Validation of a Cytological Classification System for the Rapid On-Site Evaluation (Rose) of Pulmonary and Mediastinal Needle Aspirates.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFine-needle aspiration (FNA) is well-established for the evaluation of suspicious thyroid nodules. However, a significant proportion is nondiagnostic. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been proposed to improve the overall adequacy of FNA.
methodsRetrospective cohort study comparing adequacy of thyroid FNA findings pre- and postimplementation of ROSE at a tertiary center in Switzerland. Patients undergoing thyroid FNA from January 2016 to December 2019 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of nondiagnostic findings (Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology category I).
resultsIn total, 410 thyroid nodule FNAs were performed. Of those, 309 with standard FNA and 101 with ROSE. The majority of patients were female (71%), with a median age of 56 years (IQR 46-68) and a nodule diameter of 1.9 cm (IQR 1.2-2.9). Implementation of ROSE led to a decrease in nondiagnostic findings from 41.1% to 23.8%, with an odds ratio of 0.42 (95% CI: 0.24-0.72; p = 0.002). Implementation of ROSE was associated with significantly higher rates of Bethesda category III (27.7% vs. 19.1%), category IV (15.8% vs. 5.5%), and Bethesda category VI (6.9% vs. 2.3%). Repeated FNA was performed in 29.1% before and 20.8% after implementation of ROSE (p = 0.18). The mean number of FNA per nodule was reduced from 1.4 (0.6) to 1.2 (0.4) with ROSE (p = 0.04).
conclusionsImplementation of ROSE of thyroid nodule specimen improved diagnostic adequacy of FNA, reducing nondiagnostic findings. However, due to increased equivocal findings (Bethesda category III), there was no significant reduction of repeat FNA.
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.