Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32840673›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2021

Discrepancies in digital hematopathology diagnoses for consultation and expert panel analysis.

Michiel van den Brand, Peet T G A Nooijen, Kimberly D van der Laan, Peter C de Bruin, A M Gijs van Leeuwen, Jan Willem Leeuwis, Jos W Meijer, Irene Otte-Höller, Konnie M Hebeda

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Michiel van den BrandDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Michiel.vandenBrand@radboudumc.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8871-6254
Peet T G A NooijenPathology-DNA, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands.
Kimberly D van der LaanDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Peter C de BruinPathology-DNA, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
A M Gijs van LeeuwenPathology-DNA, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands.
Jan Willem LeeuwisPathology-DNA, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Jos W MeijerPathology-DNA, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Irene Otte-HöllerDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Konnie M HebedaDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4181-3302
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLRijnstate Hospital · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital pathology with whole-slide imaging (WSI) has a large potential to make the process of expert consultation and expert panel diagnosis more rapid and more efficient. However, comparison with the current methods is necessary for validation of the technique. In this study, we determined if digital assessment of whole-slide images of hematopathology specimens with a focus on the assessment of lymphoma can be used for consultation and panel diagnostics. Ninety-three histological specimens with a suspicion for lymphoma were assessed both with conventional microscopy and digital microscopy with a wash out period between assessments. A consensus diagnosis was based on full concordance between the pathologists or, in case of discordances, was reached at a joint session at a multi-headed microscope. In 81% of the cases, there was a full concordance between digital and light microscopical assessment for all three pathologists. Discordances between conventional microscopy and digital pathology were present in 3% of assessments. In comparison with the consensus diagnosis, discordant diagnoses were made in 5 cases with digital microscopy and in 3 cases with light microscopy. The reported level of confidence and need for additional investigations were similar between assessment by conventional and by digital microscopy. In conclusion, the performance of assessment by digital pathology is in general comparable with that of conventional light microscopy and pathologists feel confident using digital pathology for this subspecialty.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyRemote ConsultationAdultAgedConsensusFemaleHumansLymphomaMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsConsultationDigital pathologyHematopathologyLymphoma

Identifiers

PMID32840673
PMCPMC7973407
OpenAlexW3080103164

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.