ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Rapid On-Site Evaluation Performed by an Interventional Pulmonologist: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample adequacy in bronchoscopic ROSE: comparison between laboratory specialist and pathologist.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2026Article
- The Ligurian Experience in the Management of Lung Cancer: Organizational Models and New Perspectives.Healthcare (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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) during bronchoscopy allows us to assess sample adequacy for diagnosis and molecular analyses in the context of precision oncology. While extemporaneous smears are typically evaluated by pathologists, their presence during bronchoscopy is not always possible. Our aim is to assess the concordance between ROSE performed by interventional pulmonologists and cytopathologists.
methodsWe performed ROSE on 133 samples collected from 108 patients who underwent bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of suspect thoracic findings or for mediastinal lymph node staging (May 2023-October 2023). Randomly selected smears (one for each collection site) were independently evaluated for adequacy by a pulmonologist and a pathologist to assess the concordance of their evaluation.
resultsAmong 133 selected smears evaluated by a pulmonologist and pathologist, 100 were adequate for both, 10 were inadequate for both and 23 were discordant; hence, global concordance was 82.7%; Cohen's Kappa was 0.385, defining fair agreement. Concordance was similar irrespective of sample collection site (lymph nodes vs. pulmonary lesions;
conclusionsTrained pulmonologists can evaluate the appropriateness of sampling with good concordance with cytopathologists. Our work supports autonomous ROSE by pulmonologists where pathologists are not immediately available.
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.