ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Diagnostic accuracy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during robotic bronchoscopy.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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.
- Review
- CellVizioJournal of Cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic bronchoscopy (RB) is increasingly used to sample peripheral pulmonary lesions due to its high diagnostic yield and low complication rate. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is often performed intra-procedurally to provide the proceduralist with qualitative and quantitative feedback on specimen quality. ROSE can be performed on fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology specimens or via touch imprint cytology (TIC) of pathology specimens. Data about the utility of ROSE in RB is sparse. This study aimed to assess the concordance between ROSE and final cytology and pathology results. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all RB cases performed at the Anschutz Medical Campus of the University of Colorado from May 2021 to December 2024. Results: A total of 156 patients were included in the study. Of these 137 also had ROSE performed and were therefore included in the concordance assessment. The concordance between FNA-ROSE and final cytology was 83%, while the concordance between TIC-ROSE and final pathology was 81%. Overall concordance between ROSE and final cytology and pathology results was 88%, and the Pearson χ Conclusions: In our cohort of RB cases, FNA-ROSE and TIC-ROSE demonstrated high concordance with the final cytology and pathology results, respectively. ROSE can enable the proceduralist to make important intra-procedural decisions about the number of lesions that need sampling and the tools and techniques to use.
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.