ArticlePathologica2025
Public health impact of a diagnostic improvement intervention supported by Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) in thoracic CT-guided biopsies: a pre-post study.
Article in Pathologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and was the most commonly diagnosed cancer in 2022. The Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) technique allows immediate evaluation of samples collected during needle aspiration and needle biopsy procedures, improving diagnostic accuracy and reducing the need for repeated procedures. Study Design: A pre-post study evaluated the health benefits for patients and improved healthcare costs with ROSE diagnostic support from a public health perspective. Methods: We compared two groups of patients who underwent TC-guided transthoracic needle aspiration/biopsy from March 2017 to March 2022. In the first group (pre-ROSE) the procedures were performed without the support of ROSE, while in the second group (post-ROSE) the pathologist assisted the radiologist in all cases. The diagnostic advantages, the economic-organizational impact of the procedure, and the related benefits for patients were analyzed. Results: The pre-ROSE group comprised 97 patients, and the post-ROSE group comprised 67. In the group receiving ROSE diagnostic support, the rate of inadequate diagnostic tests requiring repetition decreased from 29.9% to 9.0% (p = 0.001). This saved time for the radiologist, pathologist, nurse, radiology technician, laboratory technician, and support staff, freeing up diagnostic slots that could be used to reduce waiting lists and improve the quality of patient service. Conclusions: ROSE support has improved diagnostic efficacy and sample quality, reducing repeat testing and associated costs. This leads to better management of healthcare resources, reduced waiting times, and more accurate diagnoses, improving the quality of patient care and bringing public health benefits.
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.