ArticleDiagnostic pathology2014
Interobserver variation in classifying lymphomas among hematopathologists.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforming hyperspectral data into insight: the DREAM approach for pathology.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Impact of a deep learning assistant on the histopathologic classification of liver cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2020Article
- Diagnostic errors in fatal medical malpractice cases in Shanghai, China: 1990-2015.Diagnostic pathology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymphomas are common malignancies that have various subtypes with many overlapping histologic, immunophenotypic and genetic features. Therefore, discordance in classifying lymphoma among pathologists may be encountered. But this issue is not well characterized. We conducted the present study to demonstrate discordances among Thai hematopathologists as well as to highlight common arguing points for classifying lymphomas.
methodsThe 117 lymphoma cases were randomly retrieved and individually reviewed by 7 hematopathologists, members of the "Thai Hematopathologist Group," without knowing the original diagnoses. The consensus diagnoses were given from a discussion by all members. In each case, the diagnosis from each participant was compared with the consensus diagnosis and classified into 4 categories as follow: 1) concordance, 2) minor discordance, 3) major discordance and 4) serious discordance.
resultsThere were approximately 11% discordances between original and consensus diagnoses. The average discordances among all pathologists according to minor, major and serious discordances were 10%, 3.5% and 0.3%, respectively. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma had the least discordance (7%). Small biopsies had been found to increase discordances in some lymphoma subtypes.
conclusionsThe present study reveals some degrees of interobserver variation in classifying of lymphoma by using the 2008 WHO classification among hematopathologists. Some types of lymphomas on small biopsies were found to have a significant higher discordance rate. This study also described some common diagnostic discordances regarded as potential pitfalls in classifying lymphomas. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_162.
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.