Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41710160›Full record

ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2026

Sample adequacy in bronchoscopic ROSE: comparison between laboratory specialist and pathologist.

Gergő Szűcs, Judit Pápay, Eszter Regős, Ildikó Krencz, Márton Sághi, Péter Horváth

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gergő Szűcs *Department of Pulmonology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Judit PápayDepartment of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Eszter RegősDepartment of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Ildikó KrenczDepartment of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Márton SághiDepartment of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter Horváth *Department of Pulmonology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BronchoscopyEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationLung NeoplasmsLymph NodesPathologistsRapid On-site EvaluationAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedbronchoscopyEBUSlaboratory specialistpathologistROSE

Identifiers

PMID41710160
PMCPMC12909253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.