Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24682769›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2014

Digitized whole slides for breast pathology interpretation: current practices and perceptions.

Tracy Onega, Donald Weaver, Berta Geller, Natalia Oster, Anna N A Tosteson, Patricia A Carney, Heidi Nelson, Kimberly H Allison, Frances P O'Malley, Stuart J Schnitt and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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 at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Tracy OnegaDepartment of Community & Family Medicine, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, HB 7927 Rubin 8-DHMC, One Medical Center Dr., Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA, Tracy.L.Onega@dartmouth.edu.
Donald Weaver
Berta Geller
Natalia Oster
Anna N A Tosteson
Patricia A Carney
Heidi Nelson
Kimberly H Allison
Frances P O'Malley
Stuart J Schnitt
Joann G Elmore
University of Vermont · USUniversity of Washington · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USDartmouth College · USOregon Health & Science University · USProvidence Health & Services · USStanford University · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Accuracy of Breast Pathology and the Impact of Double ReadingR01CA140560 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2009 to 2013
$3.3M
Digital Pathology_Accuracy Viewing Behavior and Image CharacterizationR01CA172343 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHAPIRO, LINDA, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
Improving Accuracy &Outcomes of Breast Cancer ScreeningK05CA104699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS KO5 CA104699NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140560NCI NIH HHS R01 CA172343
6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultAge DistributionBreastBreast NeoplasmsClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMicroscopyMiddle AgedPathology, ClinicalPractice Patterns, Physicians'United States

Identifiers

PMID24682769
PMCPMC4171431
OpenAlexW2088887361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.