ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2017
Performance of a Web-based Method for Generating Synoptic Reports.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Breast Pathology Reporting Needs and Development of Tumor Synoptic Templates in Sub-Saharan Africa.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Value of MAML2 Rearrangements in Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Rule-Based Information Extraction from Free-Text Pathology Reports Reveals Trends in South African Female Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes and Ki67 Expression.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- [Document standards for pathology reports in digital medicine].Der Pathologe · 2020Review
- Synoptic Reporting: Evidence-Based Review and Future Directions.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe College of American Pathologists (CAP) requires synoptic reporting of all tumor excisions.
objectiveTo compare the performance of different methods of generating synoptic reports.
methodsCompleteness, amendment rates, rate of timely ordering of ancillary studies (KRAS in T4/N1 colon carcinoma), and structured data file extraction were compared for four different synoptic report generating methods.
resultsUse of the printed tumor protocols directly from the CAP website had the lowest completeness (84%) and highest amendment (1.8%) rates. Reformatting these protocols was associated with higher completeness (94%,
conclusionCompleteness, amendment rates, ancillary test ordering rates, and data extraction rates vary significantly with the method used to construct the synoptic report. A web-based method compares favorably with all other methods examined and does not reduce reader usability.
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.