ArticleJournal of digital imaging2014
Digitized whole slides for breast pathology interpretation: current practices and perceptions.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides.Journal of pathology informatics · 2019Article
- Influence of variability in assessment of Breslow thickness, mitotic rate and ulceration among US pathologists interpreting invasive melanoma, for the purpose of AJCC staging.Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2018Article
- Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies.Journal of clinical pathology · 2017Observational
- Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?Annals of surgical oncology · 2017Article
- Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Article
- Use of Digital Whole Slide Imaging in Dermatopathology.Journal of digital imaging · 2016Article
- An industry perspective: An update on the adoption of whole slide imaging.Journal of pathology informatics · 2016Article
- TissueCypher(™): A systems biology approach to anatomic pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2015Article
- A comparative study of input devices for digital slide navigation.Journal of pathology informatics · 2015Article
- New targeted therapies for breast cancer: A focus on tumor microenvironmental signals and chemoresistant breast cancers.World journal of clinical cases · 2014Review
- Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice and perception.Journal of clinical pathology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Digital whole slide imaging (WSI) is an emerging technology for pathology interpretation; however, little is known about pathologists' practice patterns or perceptions regarding WSI. A national sample (N = 252) of pathologists from New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Alaska, Maine, and Minnesota were surveyed in this cross-sectional study (2011-2013). The survey included questions on pathologists' experience, WSI practice patterns, and perceptions using a six-point Likert scale. Agreement was summarized with descriptive statistics to characterize pathologists' use and perceptions of WSI. The majority of participating pathologists were males (63%) between 40 and 59 years of age (70%) and not affiliated with an academic medical center (72%). Experience with WSI was reported by 49%. Types of use reported included CME/board exams/teaching (28%), tumor board/clinical conference (22%), archival purposes (6%), consultative diagnosis (4%), research (4%), and other uses (12%). Most respondents (79%) agreed that accurate diagnoses can be made with this technology, and that WSI is useful for obtaining a second opinion (88%). However, 78% of pathologists agreed that digital slides are too slow for routine clinical interpretation. Fifty-nine percent agreed that the benefits of WSI outweigh concerns. The respondents were equally split as to whether they would like to adopt WSI (51%) or not (49%). About half of pathologists reported experience with the WSI technology, largely for CME, licensure/board exams, and teaching. Positive perceptions regarding WSI slightly outweigh negative perceptions. Understanding practice patterns with WSI as dissemination advances may facilitate concordance of perceptions with adoption of the technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.