ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2018
A Comparative Study of the Perspectives of General and Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologists about the Rate and Value of Second Referral in Assessment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologic Lesions.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The main purpose in the practice of pathology is to provide an accurate diagnosis. Second referral and reassessment by a second pathologist significantly cause diagnostic errors, help to make an accurate diagnosis, and improve patient management. This study was aimed to assess the general perspectives of general and oral and maxillofacial pathologists in Iran on second referrals. In this cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study, a 20-item questionnaire on second referrals was used to assess the general and oral and maxillofacial pathologists' perspective in Iran. The obtained data were analyzed by chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). A total of 64 questionnaires from general and 45 questionnaires from oral and maxillofacial pathologists were collected. The findings showed 70.9% of pathologists were in favor of seeking a second opinion when faced with diagnostic challenges. Significant differences were found between the oral and general pathologists in terms of the most challenging oral and maxillofacial lesions (p value < 0.001). In total, 74.8% of pathologists suggested second opinion to be useful and productive. Both groups of pathologists approved of the second referral. However, this pattern is still different, and it is possible to improve the referral rate among both groups and to enhance the knowledge of general pathologists about second referral to oral and maxillofacial pathologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28211022What 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.