Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25565219›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic pathology2014

iPathology cockpit diagnostic station: validation according to College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center recommendation at the Hospital Trust and University of Verona.

Matteo Brunelli, Serena Beccari, Romano Colombari, Stefano Gobbo, Luca Giobelli, Andrea Pellegrini, Marco Chilosi, Maria Lunardi, Guido Martignoni, Aldo Scarpa and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Digital pathology structure and deployment in Veneto: a proof-of-concept study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Validation of a Novel Three-Dimensional (Journal of personalized medicine · 2022
    Article
  10. Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Digital pathology all stars.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Commentary: The Digital Fate of Glomeruli in Renal Biopsy.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Validation of a digital pathology system including remote review during the COVID-19 pandemic.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Whole slide imaging equivalency and efficiency study: experience at a large academic center.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019
    Article
  20. Validation of digital microscopy in the histopathological diagnoses of oral diseases.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2018
    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.

Matteo Brunelli
Serena Beccari
Romano Colombari
Stefano Gobbo
Luca Giobelli
Andrea Pellegrini
Marco Chilosi
Maria Lunardi
Guido Martignoni
Aldo Scarpa
Albino Eccher

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundValidation of digital whole slide images is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center recently developed recommendations for internal digital pathology system validation. Following these guidelines we sought to validate the performance of a digital approach for routine diagnosis by using an iPad and digital control widescreen-assisted workstation through a pilot study.

methodsFrom January 2014, 61 histopathological slides were scanned by ScanScope Digital Slides Scanner (Aperio, Vista, CA). Two independent pathologists performed diagnosis on virtual slides in front of a widescreen by using two computer devices (ImageScope viewing software) located to different Health Institutions (AOUI Verona) connected by local network and a remote image server using an iPad tablet (Aperio, Vista, CA), after uploading the Citrix receiver for iPad. Quality indicators related to image characters and work-flow of the e-health cockpit enterprise system were scored based on subjective (high vs poor) perception. The images were re-evaluated two weeks apart.

resultsThe whole glass slides encountered 10 liver: hepatocarcinoma, 10 renal carcinoma, 10 gastric carcinoma and 10 prostate biopsies: adenocarcinoma, 5 excisional skin biopsies: melanoma, 5 lymph-nodes: lymphoma. 6 immuno- and 5 special stains were available for intra- and internet remote viewing. Scan times averaged two minutes and 54 seconds per slide (standard deviation 2 minutes 34 seconds). Megabytes ranged from 256 to 680 (mean 390) per slide storage. Reliance on glass slide, image quality (resolution and color fidelity), slide navigation time, simultaneous viewers in geographically remote locations were considered of high performance score. Side by side comparisons between diagnosis performed on tissue glass slides versus widescreen were excellent showing an almost perfect concordance (0.81, kappa index).

conclusionsWe validated our institutional digital pathology system for routine diagnostic facing with whole slide images in a cockpit enterprise digital system or iPad tablet. Computer widescreens are better for diagnosing scanned glass slide that iPad. For urgent requests, iPad may be used. Legal aspects have to be soon faced with to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedBiopsyHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMicroscopyNeoplasmsPathology, ClinicalPilot ProjectsPractice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, MedicalSoftwareUnited StatesWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID25565219
PMCPMC4305970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.