Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31194585›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Pathology Image Exchange: The Dutch Digital Pathology Platform for Exchange of Whole-Slide Images for Efficient Teleconsultation, Telerevision, and Virtual Expert Panels.

Paul J van Diest, André Huisman, Jaap van Ekris, Jos Meijer, Stefan Willems, Hannelore Hofhuis, Xander Verbeek, Myrtle van der Wel, Shoko Vos, Roos Leguit and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Discrepancies in digital hematopathology diagnoses for consultation and expert panel analysis.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Digital pathology in the time of corona.Journal of clinical pathology · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Validation of A Nationwide Digital Pediatric Pathology Consultation Network.Pediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Paul J van DiestUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
André HuismanMedicalPHIT, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jaap van EkrisDelta-Pi, Vught, the Netherlands.
Jos MeijerDNA Pathology Laboratories, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Stefan WillemsUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hannelore HofhuisStichting Pathologisch-Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief, Houten, the Netherlands.
Xander VerbeekIntegraal Kankercentrum Nederland, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Myrtle van der WelUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Shoko VosUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Roos LeguitUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Michiel van den BrandRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Konnie HebedaRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Katrien GrünbergRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLDelta Institute for Theoretical Physics · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Among the many uses of digital pathology, remote consultation, remote revision, and virtual slide panels may be the most important ones. This requires basic slide scanner infrastructure in participating laboratories to produce whole-slide images. More importantly, a software platform is needed for exchange of these images and functionality to support the processes around discussing and reporting on these images without breaching patient privacy. This poses high demands on the setup of such a platform, given the inherent complexity of the handling of digital pathology images. In this article, we describe the setup and validation of the Pathology Image Exchange project, which aimed to create a vendor-independent platform for exchange of whole-slide images between Dutch pathology laboratories to facilitate efficient teleconsultation, telerevision, and virtual slide panels. Pathology Image Exchange was released in April 2018 after technical validation, and a first successful validation in real life has been performed for hematopathology cases.

Indexed as

MicroscopyRemote ConsultationSoftwareUser-Computer InterfaceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHealth Information ManagementHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMedical InformaticsNeoplasmsNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID31194585
PMCPMC6873950
OpenAlexW2949228069

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.