Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31603483›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Assessment of Second-Opinion Strategies for Diagnoses of Cutaneous Melanocytic Lesions.

Michael W Piepkorn, Gary M Longton, Lisa M Reisch, David E Elder, Margaret S Pepe, Kathleen F Kerr, Anna N A Tosteson, Heidi D Nelson, Stevan Knezevich, Andrea Radick and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Dermal Melanocytes Detectability for DistinguishingCurrent medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Are Pathologists Self-Aware of Their Diagnostic Accuracy? Metacognition and the Diagnostic Process in Pathology.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael W PiepkornUniversity of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
Gary M LongtonProgram in Biostatistics and Biomathematics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Lisa M ReischDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
David E ElderDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Margaret S PepeProgram in Biostatistics and Biomathematics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Kathleen F KerrDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Anna N A TostesonDepartment of Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Heidi D NelsonDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Stevan KnezevichPathology Associates, Clovis, California.
Andrea RadickDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Hannah ShucardDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Tracy OnegaDepartment of Epidemiology, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Patricia A CarneyDepartment of Family Medicine and of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
Joann G ElmoreDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Raymond L BarnhillDepartment of Translational Research, Institut Curie, Paris, France.
University of Washington · USDartmouth College · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USOregon Health & Science University · USClovis Oncology (United States) · USInstitut Curie · FRUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Melanoma & the Impact of Double ReadingR01CA151306 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2011 to 2015
$4.1M
Reducing Errors in the Diagnosis of Melanoma and Melanocytic LesionsR01CA201376 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, KERR, KATHLEEN F. · 2016 to 2020
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA151306NCI NIH HHS R01 CA201376
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Histopathologic criteria have limited diagnostic reliability for a range of cutaneous melanocytic lesions. Objective: To evaluate the association of second-opinion strategies by general pathologists and dermatopathologists with the overall reliability of diagnosis of difficult melanocytic lesions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study used samples from the Melanoma Pathology Study, which comprises 240 melanocytic lesion samples selected from a dermatopathology laboratory in Bellevue, Washington, and represents the full spectrum of lesions from common nevi to invasive melanoma. Five sets of 48 samples were evaluated independently by 187 US pathologists from July 15, 2013, through May 23, 2016. Data analysis was performed from April 2016 through November 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy of diagnosis, defined as concordance with an expert consensus diagnosis of 3 experienced pathologists, was assessed after applying 10 different second-opinion strategies. Results: Among the 187 US pathologists examining the 24 lesion samples, 113 were general pathologists (65 men [57.5%]; mean age at survey, 53.7 years [range, 33.0-79.0 years]) and 74 were dermatopathologists (49 men [66.2%]; mean age at survey, 46.4 years [range, 33.0-77.0 years]). Among the 8976 initial case interpretations, physicians desired second opinions for 3899 (43.4%), most often for interpretation of severely dysplastic nevi. The overall misclassification rate was highest when interpretations did not include second opinions and initial reviewers were all general pathologists lacking subspecialty training (52.8%; 95% CI, 51.3%-54.3%). When considering different second opinion strategies, the misclassification of melanocytic lesions was lowest when the first, second, and third consulting reviewers were subspecialty-trained dermatopathologists and when all lesions were subject to second opinions (36.7%; 95% CI, 33.1%-40.7%). When the second opinion strategies were compared with single interpretations without second opinions, the reductions in misclassification rates for some of the strategies were statistically significant, but none of the strategies eliminated diagnostic misclassification. Melanocytic lesions in the middle of the diagnostic spectrum had the highest misclassification rates (eg, moderately or severely dysplastic nevus, Spitz nevus, melanoma in situ, and pathologic stage [p]T1a invasive melanoma). Variability of in situ and thin invasive melanoma was relatively intractable to all examined strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that second opinions rendered by dermatopathologists improve reliability of melanocytic lesion diagnosis. However, discordance among pathologists remained high.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationAdultAgedClinical CompetenceCutaneous Malignant MelanomaDermatologistsDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedPathologistsSkin NeoplasmsWashington

Identifiers

PMID31603483
PMCPMC6804025
OpenAlexW2979376714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.