ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Validation of a Cytological Classification System for the Rapid On-Site Evaluation (Rose) of Pulmonary and Mediastinal Needle Aspirates.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) vs. Frozen Section in Lung Surgery: A Prospective Study on Diagnostic Speed and Accuracy.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Integration of ROSE cytology and serum tumor markers for rapid subtyping of lung cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Sampling of Mediastinal Lesions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is a procedure that allows immediate assessment of adequacy of cytological specimens obtained by fine needle aspiration (FNA). The application of ROSE diagnostic categories has been applied in various organs, but not in thoracic pathology. We aimed to retrospectively assess the concordance with the final diagnosis of a categorization from C1 (inadequate) to C5 (neoplastic) during ROSE performed with bronchoscopic or percutaneous sampling procedures of thoracic lesions in a large series of consecutive cases. This retrospective single-center study evaluated 2282 consecutive ROSEs performed on 1827 patients from January 2016 to December 2020 in 994 cases of transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) in peripheral pulmonary lesions, in 898 transthoracic FNAs, in 318 ultrasound-guided TBNAs, in 50 conventional TBNAs and in 22 endobronchial TBNAs. False positive and false negative cases of ROSE were 43 (1.88%) and 73 (3.2%), respectively, when compared with the definitive diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity and the positive and negative prognostic values of ROSE were 94.84%, 95.05%, 96.89% and 91.87%, respectively. Overall concordance between ROSE and the final diagnosis was 0.8960 (Cohen's kappa). No significant differences were observed in terms of sampling procedures and type and location of the lesions. A tiered classification scheme of ROSE from C1 to C5 during bronchoscopic and percutaneous sampling procedures is helpful in effectively guiding clinical management of patients with thoracic lesions.
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.