Table 1.Cytotechnologists in on-site evaluation of adequacy (OSEA)
Study |
Sample size |
Site of FNA |
Comparison group |
Results |
Statistical significance (p-value) |
Alsohaibani et al. [29] |
109 |
Pancreas |
Endoscopy nurse |
Inconclusive diagnosis: 47% for nurses, 23% for cytotechnologist |
.001 |
Burlingame et al. [18] |
4,729 |
Multiple body sites |
Final diagnosis |
Accuracy: 93.8-95.3% |
.0064 |
Cleveland et al. [37] |
|
Pancreas |
No OSEA |
Adequacy: 96% with cytotechnologist, 84% without cytotechnologist |
< .00083 |
Nayar et al. [38] |
179 |
Pancreas |
No OSEA |
No difference |
Not significant |
Nguyen et al. [14] |
37 |
Pancreas |
Gross examination of direct smear |
‘Fair agreement’ |
Kappa = .2 |
Olson et al. [20] |
2,261 |
Thyroid |
Cytopathologist |
Accuracy difference not statistically significant |
.33 |
Olson and Ali [19] |
2,252 |
Pancreas |
Cytopathologist |
Accuracy difference not statistically significant |
.13 |
Olson et al. [40] |
1,995 |
Bone and soft tissue |
Cytopathologist |
Accuracy difference not statistically significant |
.64 |
Petrone et al. [39] |
107 |
Pancreas |
Cytopathologist |
Pre-training adequacy: 68.2% |
.008 |
Post-training adequacy: 95.8% (cytopathologist) |
Redman et al. [16] |
574 |
Thyroid |
Final diagnosis |
Accuracy: 97% for cytopathologist, 93% for cytotechnologist |
.0015 |
Savoy et al. [23] |
117 |
EUS-guided sites |
Endosonographers |
Accuracy: 89% for cytotechnologists, 69-72% for endosonographers |
< .001 |
Wotruba et al. [34] |
167 |
Thyroid |
Cytopathologist (paired specimen) |
Concordance between cytopathologis and cytotechnologists diagnosis, 98.8%, discordance 1.2% |
Not reported |