Photo Credit: Vadym Terelyuk

The following is a summary of “Accuracy and adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation conducted by trained pulmonologist on transbronchial needle aspiration samples: A systemic review and meta-analysis,” published in the January 2025 issue of Pulmonology by Ehab et al. 

Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) depends on cytologist or pathologist availability, with studies examining trained pulmonologists’ ability to evaluate transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) samples.  

Researchers conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the validity and adequacy of ROSE evaluation by pulmonologists (P-ROSE).  

They performed a systematic search across Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Meta-Disc software V 2.0 was used to conduct the validity meta-analysis, employing a bivariate model for the analysis.  

The results showed 14 studies were included, with sensitivity of 89.6% (95% CI: 0.827–0.94), specificity of 95.9% (95% CI: 0.845–0.999), negative likelihood ratio of 0.108 (95% CI: 0.064–0.183), and positive likelihood ratio of 21.598 (95% CI: 5.447–85.636), P-ROSE showed high diagnostic accuracy (80%–89.5%) and adequacy (83.1%). The K coefficient for diagnosis ranged from 0.18 to 0.94, and for adequacy, from −0.02 to 0.72.  

Investigators concluded the P-ROSE demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for pulmonologists to assess TBNA samples, enabling reliable initial diagnosis and sample adequacy assessment, which is particularly valuable in settings with limited pathologist availability. 

Source: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0954611124003780