ArticleIndian journal of medical and paediatric oncology : official journal of Indian Society of Medical & Paediatric Oncology2014
Interobserver variation is a significant limitation in the diagnosis of Burkitt lymphoma.
Article in Indian journal of medical and paediatric oncology : official journal of Indian Society of Medical & Paediatric Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of Pathologic Diagnosis in Patients With Lymphoma and Survival: A Prospective Analysis From Botswana.JCO global oncology · 2021Article
- Application of aptamers in diagnostics, drug-delivery and imaging.Journal of biosciences · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe pathology of classic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) remains a challenge despite being a well-defined entity, in view of the significant overlap with atypical BL and B-cell lymphoma intermediate between DLBL (diffuse large B cell lymphoma) and BL. They are difficult to be segregated in resource-limited setups which lack molecular testing facilities. This is further affected by interobserver variability and experience of the reporting pathologist.
aimsThe aim of our study was to quantitate variability among a group of pathologists with an interest in lymphomas (albeit with variable levels of experience) and quantitate the benefit of joint discussions as a tool to increase accuracy and reduce interobserver variability of pathologists, in the diagnosis of BL in a resource-limited setup. MATERIALS AND
methodsA set of 25 non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases in which a diagnosis of BL was entertained were circulated to 14 participating pathologist within the Mumbai lymphoma study group. A proforma recorded the morphologic and immunohistochemical features perceived during the initial independent diagnosis followed by a consensus meeting for discussion on morphology and additional information pertinent to the case. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND
resultsThe concordance was poor for independent diagnosis among all the pathologists with kappa statistics (±SE) of 0.168 (±0.018). Expert lymphoma pathologists had the highest (albeit only fair) concordance (kappa = 0.373 ± 0.071) and general pathologists the lowest concordance (kappa = 0.138 ± 0.035). Concordance for morphological diagnosis was highest among expert lymphoma pathologists (kappa = 0.356 ± 0.127). Revision of diagnoses after consensus meeting was highest for B-cell lymphoma intermediate between DLB and BL. To conclude, interobserver variation is a significant problem in BL in the post WHO 2008 classification era. Experience with a larger number of cases and joint discussion exercises such as the one we conducted are needed as they represent a simple and effective way of improving diagnostic accuracy of pathologists working in a resource-limited setup.
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.