Observational studyJournal of cutaneous pathology2018
Complexities of perceived and actual performance in pathology interpretation: A comparison of cutaneous melanocytic skin and breast interpretations.
Observational study in Journal of cutaneous pathology, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about how pathologists process differences between actual and perceived interpretations.
objectiveTo compare perceived and actual diagnostic agreement before and after educational interventions.
methodsPathologists interpreted test sets of skin and/or breast specimens that included benign, atypical, in situ and invasive lesions. Interventions involved self-directed learning, one skin and one breast, that showed pathologists how their interpretations compared to a reference diagnoses. Prior to the educational intervention, participants estimated how their interpretations would compare to the reference diagnoses. After the intervention, participants estimated their overall agreement with the reference diagnoses. Perceived and actual agreements were compared.
resultsFor pathologists interpreting skin, mean actual agreement was 52.4% and overall pre- and postinterventional mean perceived agreement was 72.9% vs 54.2%, an overestimated mean difference of 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2% to 24.0%) and 1.8% (95% CI -0.5% to 4.1%), respectively. For pathologists interpreting breast, mean actual agreement was 75.9% and overall pre- and postinterventional mean perceived agreement was 81.4% vs 76.9%, an overestimation of 5.5% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.0%) and 1.0% (95% CI 0.0% to 2.0%), respectively.
conclusionsPathologists interpreting breast tissue had improved comprehension of their performance after the intervention compared to pathologists interpreting skin lesions.
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.