Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32477618›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2020

Guidance for Remote Reporting of Digital Pathology Slides During Periods of Exceptional Service Pressure: An Emergency Response from the UK Royal College of Pathologists.

Bethany Jill Williams, David Brettle, Muhammad Aslam, Paul Barrett, Gareth Bryson, Simon Cross, David Snead, Clare Verrill, Emily Clarke, Alexander Wright and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital transformation of pathology - the European Society of Pathology expert opinion paper.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Understanding the ethical and legal considerations of Digital Pathology.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

11 authors.

Bethany Jill WilliamsLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
David BrettleLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Muhammad AslamBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wales, UK.
Paul BarrettCounty Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Darlington, UK.
Gareth BrysonNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scotland, UK.
Simon CrossUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
David SneadUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
Clare VerrillNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Emily ClarkeLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Alexander WrightUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Darren TreanorLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pathology departments must rise to new staffing challenges caused by the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic and may need to work more flexibly for the foreseeable future. In light of this, many pathologists and departments are considering the merits of remote or home reporting of digital cases. While some individuals have experience of this, little work has been done to determine optimum conditions for home reporting, including technical and training considerations. In this publication produced in response to the pandemic, we provide information regarding risk assessment of home reporting of digital slides, summarize available information on specifications for home reporting computing equipment, and share access to a novel point-of-use quality assurance tool for assessing the suitability of home reporting screens for digital slide diagnosis. We hope this study provides a useful starting point and some practical guidance in a difficult time. This study forms the basis of the guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists, available at: https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/626ead77-d7dd-42e1-949988e43dc84c97/RCPath-guidance-for-remote-digital-pathology.pdf.

Indexed as

Digital pathologyhome reportingpatient safetyremote reportingtechnical specifications

Identifiers

PMID32477618
PMCPMC7245343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.