ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2026
Sample adequacy in bronchoscopic ROSE: comparison between laboratory specialist and pathologist.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during bronchoscopy provides the opportunity to assess the adequacy of the sampling site, thus enabling diagnosis. The rapid evaluation of smears is typically performed by cytopathologists, but this is not always feasible. At our institution, a university-trained clinical biochemist performs the evaluation of ROSE smears. Our aim was to compare ROSE evaluations conducted by a laboratory specialist and a cytopathologist. We assessed the adequacy of lymph node samples from 78 patients using ROSE: 37 samples were obtained via EBUS-TBNA and 41 via TBNA. All smears were examined by the laboratory specialist, and simultaneously prepared parallel smears from the same needle passes were sent to the Department of Pathology for evaluation. Of the 78 samples, both the laboratory specialist and the pathologist team deemed 63 samples adequate and 8 samples inadequate. In 7 cases, there was a disagreement between the pathologist team and laboratory specialist. This resulted in a 92.3% agreement. The Cohen's kappa value was 0.71, indicating strong and Gwet's AC1 value was 0.90 corresponding to almost perfect agreement. The diagnostic performance was also excellent. Our conclusion is that ROSE performed by a laboratory specialist is a suitable alternative to on-site evaluation by a pathologist. It may help to overcome the resource shortage of interventional pulmonologists and cytopathologists.
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.