Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31367473›Full record

ReviewJournal of pathology informatics2019

The Landscape of Digital Pathology in Transplantation: From the Beginning to the Virtual E-Slide.

Ilaria Girolami, Anil Parwani, Valeria Barresi, Stefano Marletta, Serena Ammendola, Lavinia Stefanizzi, Luca Novelli, Arrigo Capitanio, Matteo Brunelli, Liron Pantanowitz and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pathology informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Commentary: The Digital Fate of Glomeruli in Renal Biopsy.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Precision transplant pathology.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Ilaria GirolamiDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Anil ParwaniDepartment of Pathology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Valeria BarresiDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Stefano MarlettaDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Serena AmmendolaDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Lavinia StefanizziDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Luca NovelliDepartment of Translational Medicine and Surgery, Institute of Histopathology and Molecular Diagnosis, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Arrigo CapitanioDepartment of Clinical Pathology, and Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Matteo BrunelliDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Liron PantanowitzDepartment of Pathology, UPMC Shadyside Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Albino EccherDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital pathology has progressed over the last two decades, with many clinical and nonclinical applications. Transplantation pathology is a highly specialized field in which the majority of practicing pathologists do not have sufficient expertise to handle critical needs. In this context, digital pathology has proven to be useful as it allows for timely access to expert second-opinion teleconsultation. The aim of this study was to review the experience of the application of digital pathology to the field of transplantation.

methodsPapers on this topic were retrieved using PubMed as a search engine. Inclusion criteria were the presence of transplantation setting and the use of any type of digital image with or without the use of image analysis tools; the search was restricted to English language papers published in the 25 years until December 31, 2018.

resultsLiterature regarding digital transplant pathology is mostly about the digital interpretation of posttransplant biopsies (75 vs. 19), with 15/75 (20%) articles focusing on agreement/reproducibility. Several papers concentrated on the correlation between biopsy features assessed by digital image analysis (DIA) and clinical outcome (45/75, 60%). Whole-slide imaging (WSI) only appeared in recent publications, starting from 2011 (13/75, 17.3%). Papers dealing with preimplantation biopsy are less numerous, the majority (13/19, 68.4%) of which focus on diagnostic agreement between digital microscopy and light microscopy (LM), with WSI technology being used in only a small quota of papers (4/19, 21.1%).

conclusionsOverall, published studies show good concordance between digital microscopy and LM modalities for diagnosis. DIA has the potential to increase diagnostic reproducibility and facilitate the identification and quantification of histological parameters. Thus, with advancing technology such as faster scanning times, better image resolution, and novel image algorithms, it is likely that WSI will eventually replace LM.

Indexed as

Digital pathologydonor biopsygraft biopsyimage analysistransplantation

Identifiers

PMID31367473
PMCPMC6639852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.