ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2016
Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2016. 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.
- [Document standards for pathology reports in digital medicine].Der Pathologe · 2020Review
- A Design Study Investigating Augmented Reality and Photograph Annotation in a Digitalized Grossing Workstation.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundToday, pathology reporting consists of many separate tasks, carried out by multiple people. Common tasks include dictation during case review, transcription, verification of the transcription, report distribution, and report the key findings to follow-up registries. Introduction of digital workstations makes it possible to remove some of these tasks and simplify others. This study describes the work presented at the Nordic Symposium on Digital Pathology 2015, in Linköping, Sweden.
methodsWe explored the possibility to have a digital tool that simplifies image review by assisting note-taking, and with minimal extra effort, populates a structured report. Thus, our prototype sees reporting as an activity interleaved with image review rather than a separate final step. We created an interface to collect, sort, and display findings for the most common reporting needs, such as tumor size, grading, and scoring.
resultsThe interface was designed to reduce the need to retain partial findings in the head or on paper, while at the same time be structured enough to support automatic extraction of key findings for follow-up registry reporting. The final prototype was evaluated with two pathologists, diagnosing complicated partial mastectomy cases. The pathologists experienced that the prototype aided them during the review and that it created a better overall workflow.
conclusionsThese results show that it is feasible to simplify the reporting tasks in a way that is not distracting, while at the same time being able to automatically extract the key findings. This simplification is possible due to the realization that the structured format needed for automatic extraction of data can be used to offload the pathologists' working memory during the diagnostic review.
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.