ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2019
Effects of subspecialty signout and group consensus on the diagnosis of microscopic colitis.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological approach to Microscopic Colitis diagnosis.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microscopic colitis (MC) includes lymphocytic colitis (LC) and collagenous colitis (CC). Microscopic changes are required to establish these diagnoses. While criteria exist, interobserver variability has been reported previously. This has not been evaluated in the context of subspecialty signout (SSSO) or a consensus conference. We identified 133 colon biopsies diagnosed as LC, CC, MC, or normal but with mild changes insufficient for MC. All predated the introduction of SSSO at our institution. They were independently reviewed by three gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists. Cases lacking independent consensus were reviewed by the same pathologists in consensus conference to establish a final diagnosis. Individual diagnoses were compared with the consensus diagnoses, and consensus diagnoses were compared with original diagnoses made by GI and non-GI pathologists. Consensus diagnoses were normal (n = 34), LC (n = 57), and CC (n = 42). "Normal" was the diagnosis most commonly agreed upon independently (27/34 cases, P = 0.0073 versus LC, P = 0.0172 versus CC). The reviewing pathologists independently agreed with 80%, 80%, and 94% of consensus diagnoses (κ = 0.70, 0.69, and 0.91). The group consensus agreed with the diagnoses in 49 of 58 (84%) cases originally signed out by non-GI pathologists (κ = 0.77) and in 44 of 57 (77%) cases originally signed out by GI pathologists (κ = 0.63). Good interobserver agreement exists for MC, though whether GI subspecialty training improves agreement remains unclear. Group consensus may aid in diagnosis of difficult/borderline MC cases.
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.