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.
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.