Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23634907›Full record

GuidelineArchives of pathology & laboratory medicine2013

Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center.

Liron Pantanowitz, John H Sinard, Walter H Henricks, Lisa A Fatheree, Alexis B Carter, Lydia Contis, Bruce A Beckwith, Andrew J Evans, Avtar Lal, Anil V Parwani and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readPractice GuidelineValidation Study
In one paragraph

Guideline in Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 271 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
271citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
60.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

271 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 593 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. The use of digital microscopy as a teaching method for human pathology: a systematic review.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2020
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Digital Pathology in Dermatology - Current Status, Applications and Perspectives.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

211 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Liron PantanowitzFrom the Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Drs Pantanowitz, Contis, and Parwani); the Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (Dr Sinard); the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Henricks); the College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois (Ms Fatheree); the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (Dr Carter); the Department of Pathology, North Shore Medical Center, Salem, Massachusetts (Dr Beckwith); the Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Dr Evans); the Department of Pathology, Baystate Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, Massachusetts (Dr Otis); and University Hospital, London Health Science Center, London, Ontario, Canada (Dr Lal).
John H Sinard
Walter H Henricks
Lisa A Fatheree
Alexis B Carter
Lydia Contis
Bruce A Beckwith
Andrew J Evans
Avtar Lal
Anil V Parwani
College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center
Tufts University · US

Funding

Pulmonary Toxicology Facility CoreP30ES005605 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Brandi Janssen · 1990 to 2026
$40.5M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES005605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThere is increasing interest in using whole slide imaging (WSI) for diagnostic purposes (primary and/or consultation). An important consideration is whether WSI can safely replace conventional light microscopy as the method by which pathologists review histologic sections, cytology slides, and/or hematology slides to render diagnoses. Validation of WSI is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance based on digitized slides is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. Currently, there are no standard guidelines regarding validation of WSI for diagnostic use.

objectiveTo recommend validation requirements for WSI systems to be used for diagnostic purposes.

designThe College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a nonvendor panel from North America with expertise in digital pathology to develop these validation recommendations. A literature review was performed in which 767 international publications that met search term requirements were identified. Studies outside the scope of this effort and those related solely to technical elements, education, and image analysis were excluded. A total of 27 publications were graded and underwent data extraction for evidence evaluation. Recommendations were derived from the strength of evidence determined from 23 of these published studies, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus.

resultsTwelve guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories validate their own WSI systems intended for clinical use. Validation of the entire WSI system, involving pathologists trained to use the system, should be performed in a manner that emulates the laboratory's actual clinical environment. It is recommended that such a validation study include at least 60 routine cases per application, comparing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between digitized and glass slides viewed at least 2 weeks apart. It is important that the validation process confirm that all material present on a glass slide to be scanned is included in the digital image.

conclusionsValidation should demonstrate that the WSI system under review produces acceptable digital slides for diagnostic interpretation. The intention of validating WSI systems is to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingHistocytochemistryImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedPathology, ClinicalHumansLaboratoriesNorth AmericaObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23634907
PMCPMC7240346
OpenAlexW2166581609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.