2003
DOI: 10.1097/00128594-200304000-00016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On-site Cytopathologic Analysis of Bronchoscopic Needle Aspiration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several studies have reported the utility of ROSE during TBNA [8,[23][24][25][26][27]. The technique has been described as effective and capable of increasing the diagnostic yield [24,25] and reduce the number of aspirates [23,26], the need for additional diagnostic procedures [8,23,26], the complication rate of bronchoscopy [23], and the cost [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Several studies have reported the utility of ROSE during TBNA [8,[23][24][25][26][27]. The technique has been described as effective and capable of increasing the diagnostic yield [24,25] and reduce the number of aspirates [23,26], the need for additional diagnostic procedures [8,23,26], the complication rate of bronchoscopy [23], and the cost [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The technique has been described as effective and capable of increasing the diagnostic yield [24,25] and reduce the number of aspirates [23,26], the need for additional diagnostic procedures [8,23,26], the complication rate of bronchoscopy [23], and the cost [8]. Although it remains controversial [27], many specialists now recommend the use of ROSE during TBNA [28] although the benefit of ROSE during EBUS-TBNA may be smaller than that during TBNA because EBUS-TBNA provides a high diagnostic yield even without ROSE. So far, only a few studies [14,29,30] have investigated the utility of ROSE during EBUS-TBNA.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Expert panels have stated that the use of on‐site cytological evaluation during EBUS‐TBNA reduces the need for additional procedures 5 . However, its utility for LN staging in lung cancer for certain investigators is still controversial, 4‐7 and not widely used in some institutions 8,9 . Notably, most of the previous studies against the use of c‐ROSE show no evidence that cytological on‐site evaluation was performed by an experienced cytopathology team or describe the details of cytology assistance 5 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The usefulness of ROSE was undoubted since 2005, when Baram et al published another observational trial which, for the first time, failed to show an increase of the diagnostic yield or the specimen's adequacy for the patients undergoing ROSE, yet suggested that onsite review allowed to avoid additional sampling without loss in diagnostic yield [4]. The results of this study prompted a critical re-evaluation of the clinical research regarding ROSE, which led to the identification of several problems limiting the reliability of the results from the above studies [5,6].…”
mentioning
confidence: 84%