ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Rapid Remote Online Evaluation in Endoscopic Diagnostics: An Analysis of Biopsy-Proven Respiratory Cytopathology.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic concordance of remote WSI-based thyroid cytology compared to conventional cytological diagnosis: a pilot study.Diagnostic pathology · 2026Article
- Advancements in Digital Cytopathology Since COVID-19: Insights from a Narrative Review of Review Articles.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Viability of Whole-Slide Imaging for Intraoperative Touch Imprint Cytological Diagnosis of Axillary Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer Patients.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2025Article
- Optimizing Endoscopic Respiratory Diagnostics with Cytology: An Update on Touch Imprints with a Comparative Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluating Diagnostic Clarity: The Comparative Efficacy of BlueStain in Serous Effusion Cytology under the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology Reporting Framework.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis prospective study assesses the use of rapid remote online cytological evaluation for diagnosing endoscopical achieved biopsies. It focuses on its effectiveness in identifying benign and malignant conditions using digital image processing.
methodsThe study was conducted between April 2021 and September 2022 and involved analyses of 314 Rapid Remote Online Cytological Evaluations in total (154 imprint cytologies, 143 fine needle aspirations and 17 brush cytologies) performed on 239 patients at the LungenClinic Grosshansdorf. During on-site evaluation via telecytology, the time requirement was recorded and the findings were compared with the cyto-/histological and final diagnoses.
resultsBy means of rapid remote online evaluation, findings of 86 cytological benign, 190 malignant and 38 unclear diagnoses were recorded (Ø assessment time, 100 s; range, 11-370 s). In 27 of the 37 specimens with unclear diagnoses, the final findings were malignant tumours and only 6 were benign changes. The diagnosis of another 4 of these 37 findings remained unclear. Excluding these 37 specimens, rapid remote online evaluation achieved a sensitivity of 90.5% with a specificity of 98.5% and a correct classification rate of 92.4% with regard to the final diagnosis of all cases. As expected, an increase in the sensitivity rate for the cytological detection of malignant tumours (76.1% vs. 92.5%) was found especially in fine-needle aspirations.
conclusionsRapid remote online analysis allows the fast quantitative and qualitative evaluation of clinically obtained cytological specimens. With a correct classification rate of more than 93%, sampling deficiencies can be corrected promptly and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches can be derived.
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.