ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2020
The Next Generation Robotic Microscopy for Intraoperative Teleneuropathology Consultation.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital pathology systems enabling quality patient care.Genes, chromosomes & cancer · 2023Review
- Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Review
- The histopathological diagnosis of atypical meningioma: glass slide versus whole slide imaging for grading assessment.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Commentary: Impact of Digital Pathology in the Field of Intraoperative Neuropathology: Master the Tool.Journal of pathology informatics · 2020Article
- Frozen section telepathology service: Efficiency and benefits of an e-health policy in South Tyrol.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTeleneuropathology at our institution evolved over the last 17 years from using static to dynamic robotic microscopy. Historically (2003-2007), using older technology, the deferral rate was 19.7%, and the concordance was 81% with the final diagnosis. Two years ago, we switched to use hybrid robotic devices to perform these intraoperative (IO) consultations because our older devices were obsolete. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact this change had on our deferral and concordance rates with teleneuropathology using this newer instrument. MATERIALS AND
methodsAperio LV1 4-slide capacity hybrid robotic scanners with an attached desktop console (Leica Biosystems, Vista, CA, USA) and GoToAssist (v4.5.0.1620, Boston, MA, USA) were used for IO telepathology cases. A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted comparing teleneuropathology from three remote hospitals (193 cases) to IO neuropathology consultation performed by conventional glass slide examination at a light microscope (310 cases) from the host hospital. Deferral and concordance rates were compared to final histopathological diagnoses.
resultsThe deferral rate for IO teleneuropathology was 26% and conventional glass slide 24.24% (
conclusionThe new hybrid robotic device for performing IO teleneuropathology interpretations at our institution was as effective as conventional glass slide interpretation. While we did observe a noticeable change in the deferral rate compared to prior years, we did appreciate the marked improvement of the concordance rate using this new hybrid scanner.
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.