Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24524004›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2013

Optimal z-axis scanning parameters for gynecologic cytology specimens.

Amber D Donnelly, Maheswari S Mukherjee, Elizabeth R Lyden, Julia A Bridge, Subodh M Lele, Najia Wright, Mary F McGaughey, Alicia M Culberson, Adam J Horn, Whitney R Wedel and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. From Scope to Screen: The Evolution of Histology Education.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2020
    Article
  12. Video compression to support the expansion of whole-slide imaging into cytology.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2019
    Article
  13. Constant Quest for Quality: Digital Cytopathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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.

Amber D DonnellyCytotechnology Education, School of Allied Health Professions, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Maheswari S MukherjeeCytotechnology Education, School of Allied Health Professions, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Elizabeth R LydenDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Julia A BridgeDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Subodh M LeleDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Najia WrightDepartment of Cytology, Alegent-Creighton Health, Omaha, NE, USA.
Mary F McGaugheyDepartment of Cytology, The Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Alicia M CulbersonTexas Health Hugley Hospital, Fort Worth South, Burleson, TX, USA.
Adam J HornDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Whitney R WedelDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Stanley J RadioDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of virtual microscopy (VM) in clinical cytology has been limited due to the inability to focus through three dimensional (3D) cell clusters with a single focal plane (2D images). Limited information exists regarding the optimal scanning parameters for 3D scanning.

aimsThe purpose of this study was to determine the optimal number of the focal plane levels and the optimal scanning interval to digitize gynecological (GYN) specimens prepared on SurePath™ glass slides while maintaining a manageable file size. SUBJECTS AND

methodsThe iScanCoreo Au scanner (Ventana, AZ, USA) was used to digitize 192 SurePath™ glass slides at three focal plane levels at 1 μ interval. The digitized virtual images (VI) were annotated using BioImagene's Image Viewer. Five participants interpreted the VI and recorded the focal plane level at which they felt confident and later interpreted the corresponding glass slide specimens using light microscopy (LM). The participants completed a survey about their experiences. Inter-rater agreement and concordance between the VI and the glass slide specimens were evaluated.

resultsThis study determined an overall high intra-rater diagnostic concordance between glass and VI (89-97%), however, the inter-rater agreement for all cases was higher for LM (94%) compared with VM (82%). Survey results indicate participants found low grade dysplasia and koilocytes easy to diagnose using three focal plane levels, the image enhancement tool was useful and focusing through the cells helped with interpretation; however, the participants found VI with hyperchromatic crowded groups challenging to interpret. Participants reported they prefer using LM over VM. This study supports using three focal plane levels and 1 μ interval to expand the use of VM in GYN cytology.

conclusionFuture improvements in technology and appropriate training should make this format a more preferable and practical option in clinical cytology.

Indexed as

Cytologydigital pathologyvirtual microscopyz-axis

Identifiers

PMID24524004
PMCPMC3908726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.