Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26501122›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2015

Do We Know Why We Make Errors in Morphological Diagnosis? An Analysis of Approach and Decision-Making in Haematological Morphology.

Michelle Brereton, Barbara De La Salle, John Ardern, Keith Hyde, John Burthem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. 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

5 authors.

Michelle BreretonCentral Manchester Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.
Barbara De La SalleUK NEQAS(H), PO Box 14, Watford WD18 OFJ, UK.
John ArdernCentral Manchester Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.
Keith HydeCentral Manchester Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK ; School of Healthcare Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, John Dalton Building, M1 5GD, UK.
John BurthemCentral Manchester Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK ; Institute of Cancer Sciences, 5th Floor St Marys Hospital, University of Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe laboratory interpretation of blood film morphology is frequently a rapid, accurate, and cost-effective final-stage of blood count analysis. However, the interpretation of findings often rests with a single individual, and errors can carry significant impact. Cell identification and classification skills are well supported by existing resources, but the contribution and importance of other skills are less well understood.

methodsThe UK external quality assurance group in haematology (UK NEQAS(H)) runs a Continued Professional Development scheme where large digital-images of abnormal blood smears are presented using a web-based virtual microscope. Each case is answered by more than 800 individuals. Morphological feature selection and prioritisation, as well as diagnosis and proposed action, are recorded. We analysed the responses of participants, aiming to identify successful strategies as well as sources of error.

findingsThe approach to assessment by participants depended on the affected cell type, case complexity or skills of the morphologist. For cases with few morphological abnormalities, we found that accurate cell identification and classification were the principle requirements for success. For more complex films however, feature recognition and prioritisation had primary importance. Additionally however, we found that participants employed a range of heuristic techniques to support their assessment, leading to associated bias and error.

interpretationA wide range of skills together allow successful morphological assessment and the complexity of this process is not always understood or recognised. Heuristic techniques are widely employed to support or reinforce primary observations and to simplify complex findings. These approaches are effective and are integral to assessment; however they may also be a source of bias or error. Improving outcomes and supporting diagnosis require the development of decision-support mechanisms that identify and support the benefits of heuristic strategies while identifying or avoiding associated biases.

fundingThe CPD scheme is funded by participant subscription.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHematologyMedical ErrorsAdultHumansSoftwareBlood cell morphologyCell recognitionDiagnosisErrorsHeuristics

Identifiers

PMID26501122
PMCPMC4588379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.