Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018;62(4):244-252.
doi: 10.1159/000489550. Epub 2018 Jun 6.

Rapid On-Site Evaluation of Fine-Needle Aspiration by Non-Cytopathologists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Adequacy Assessment

Lauren Pearson  1 , Rachel E Factor  1 , Sandra K White  1 , Brandon S Walker  1 , Lester J Layfield  2 , Robert L Schmidt  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Rapid On-Site Evaluation of Fine-Needle Aspiration by Non-Cytopathologists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Adequacy Assessment

Lauren Pearson et al. Acta Cytol. 2018.

Abstract

Objective: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been shown to improve adequacy rates and reduce needle passes. ROSE is often performed by cytopathologists who have limited availability and may be costlier than alternatives. Several recent studies examined the use of alternative evaluators (AEs) for ROSE. A summary of this information could help inform guidelines regarding the use of AEs. The objective was to assess the accuracy of AEs compared to cytopathologists in assessing the adequacy of specimens during ROSE.

Study design: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reporting and study quality were assessed using the STARD guidelines and QUADAS-2. All steps were performed independently by two evaluators. Summary estimates were obtained using the hierarchal method in Stata v14. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Higgins' I2 statistic.

Results: The systematic review identified 13 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for AEs were 97% (95% CI: 92-99%) and 83% (95% CI: 68-92%). There was wide variation in accuracy statistics between studies (I2 = 0.99).

Conclusions: AEs sometimes have accuracy that is close to cytopathologists. However, there is wide variability between studies, so it is not possible to provide a broad guideline regarding the use of AEs.

Keywords: Accuracy; Adequacy; Biopsy; Cytopathology; Fine-needle aspiration; Meta-analysis; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer