ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Diagnostic Efficacy of Histology Combined with Single Cytology for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- A Case of Pleomorphic-Type Anaplastic Carcinoma of the Pancreas with Rapidly Progressive and Fatal Cardiac Metastasis.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies vs. Percutaneous Biopsies of Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A Rapid On-Line Evaluation (ROLE) Protocol in the Diagnostic Performance Improvement in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical approach to indeterminate biliary strictures: Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and workup.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the Diagnosis of Suspicious Malignant Esophageal Strictures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- AI-assisted rapid on-site evaluation ROSE of EUS-FNA cytopathology for pancreatic solid lesions: A two-stage deep learning approach.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of ROSE in EUS-FNA pancreatic lesions is still controversial in many centers. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the contribution of ROSE to the diagnostic accuracy, as well as its assistance to the pathologist/cytopathologist.
methods162 EUS-FNA biopsies were included in the study. EUS-FNA cytology results were reported according to the six-tiered system of Papanicolaou Cytopathology Society and compared to their final diagnosis with histopathology and/or clinical follow-ups regarding malignancy. The diagnostic yield, the difference in diagnostic accuracy, and the contribution of ROSE to providing the pathologist with adequate tissue uptake (number of slides and cell blocks) for further examination were compared in the ROSE and non-ROSE patient groups.
resultsIn the non-ROSE group, the diagnostic accuracy according to the final diagnoses was 96% and the sensitivity was 94.44%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, NPV 87.50%; while diagnostic accuracy was 97.09%, sensitivity 97.47%, specificity 95.83%, PPV 98.77%, NPV 92% in patients with ROSE. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between those with and without ROSE (p: 0.078). In diagnostic cases, the number of passes, slides and cell blocks were significantly higher in patients with ROSE than those without ROSE (p: 0.003, p: 0.007, p: 0.012, respectively). ROSE was independently associated with diagnostic yield when evaluated by number of passes, slides, cell blocks in regression analysis (p: 0.001, OR: 5.07, confidence interval: 1.89-13.5).
conclusionROSE may increase the acquisition of sufficient tissue, but it does not have an advantage in diagnostic accuracy. ROSE may raise the number of slides, which may assist the pathologist for the diagnosis. If the lesion is solid and/or contains a solid component, diagnostic yield is higher in patients where ROSE is available. Therefore, ROSE still maintains its applicability in terms of increasing the diagnostic efficiency and making the final diagnosis.
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.