Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28961557›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of surgical pathology2018

Whole Slide Imaging Versus Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology: A Multicenter Blinded Randomized Noninferiority Study of 1992 Cases (Pivotal Study).

Sanjay Mukhopadhyay, Michael D Feldman, Esther Abels, Raheela Ashfaq, Senda Beltaifa, Nicolas G Cacciabeve, Helen P Cathro, Liang Cheng, Kumarasen Cooper, Glenn E Dickey and 24 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readEquivalence TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 183 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
25.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

183 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 381 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The evolving role of DICOM in digital pathology.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

34 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Sanjay MukhopadhyayDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Michael D FeldmanDepartment of Pathology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Esther AbelsPhilips Digital Pathology Solutions, Best, The Netherlands.
Raheela AshfaqMiraca Life Sciences, Irving, TX.
Senda BeltaifaAdvanced Pathology Associates, Silver Spring, MD.
Nicolas G CacciabeveAdvanced Pathology Associates, Silver Spring, MD.
Helen P CathroDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Liang ChengDepartment of Pathology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IA.
Kumarasen CooperDepartment of Pathology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Glenn E DickeyAdvanced Pathology Associates, Silver Spring, MD.
Ryan M GillDepartment of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco.
Robert P HeatonAdvanced Pathology Associates, Silver Spring, MD.
René KerstensPhilips Digital Pathology Solutions, Best, The Netherlands.
Guy M LindbergMiraca Life Sciences, Irving, TX.
Reenu K MalhotraMiraca Life Sciences, Irving, TX.
James W MandellDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Ellen D ManlucuAdvanced Pathology Associates, Silver Spring, MD.
Anne M MillsDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Stacey E MillsDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Christopher A MoskalukDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Mischa NelisPhilips Digital Pathology Solutions, Best, The Netherlands.
Deepa T PatilDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Christopher G PrzybycinDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Jordan P ReynoldsDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Brian P RubinDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Mohammad H SaboorianMiraca Life Sciences, Irving, TX.
Mauricio SalicruMiraca Life Sciences, Irving, TX.
Mark A SamolsAdvanced Pathology Associates, Silver Spring, MD.
Charles D SturgisDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Kevin O TurnerMiraca Life Sciences, Irving, TX.
Mark R WickDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Ji Y YoonMiraca Life Sciences, Irving, TX.
Po ZhaoAdvanced Pathology Associates, Silver Spring, MD.
Clive R TaylorDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Cleveland Clinic · USUniversity of Virginia · USPhilips (Netherlands) · NLHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USIndiana University School of MedicineUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most prior studies of primary diagnosis in surgical pathology using whole slide imaging (WSI) versus microscopy have focused on specific organ systems or included relatively few cases. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that WSI is noninferior to microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. A blinded randomized noninferiority study was conducted across the entire range of surgical pathology cases (biopsies and resections, including hematoxylin and eosin, immunohistochemistry, and special stains) from 4 institutions using the original sign-out diagnosis (baseline diagnosis) as the reference standard. Cases were scanned, converted to WSI and randomized. Sixteen pathologists interpreted cases by microscopy or WSI, followed by a wash-out period of ≥4 weeks, after which cases were read by the same observers using the other modality. Major discordances were identified by an adjudication panel, and the differences between major discordance rates for both microscopy (against the reference standard) and WSI (against the reference standard) were calculated. A total of 1992 cases were included, resulting in 15,925 reads. The major discordance rate with the reference standard diagnosis was 4.9% for WSI and 4.6% for microscopy. The difference between major discordance rates for microscopy and WSI was 0.4% (95% confidence interval, -0.30% to 1.01%). The difference in major discordance rates for WSI and microscopy was highest in endocrine pathology (1.8%), neoplastic kidney pathology (1.5%), urinary bladder pathology (1.3%), and gynecologic pathology (1.2%). Detailed analysis of these cases revealed no instances where interpretation by WSI was consistently inaccurate compared with microscopy for multiple observers. We conclude that WSI is noninferior to microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology, including biopsies and resections stained with hematoxylin and eosin, immunohistochemistry and special stains. This conclusion is valid across a wide variety of organ systems and specimen types.

Indexed as

Histocytological Preparation TechniquesHumansMicroscopyObserver VariationPathology, SurgicalReproducibility of ResultsSingle-Blind Method

Identifiers

PMID28961557
PMCPMC5737464
OpenAlexW2759004613

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.