Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34221633›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2021

Dissecting the Business Case for Adoption and Implementation of Digital Pathology: A White Paper from the Digital Pathology Association.

Giovanni Lujan, Jennifer C Quigley, Douglas Hartman, Anil Parwani, Brian Roehmholdt, Bryan Van Meter, Orly Ardon, Matthew G Hanna, Dan Kelly, Chelsea Sowards and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Digital transformation of pathology - the European Society of Pathology expert opinion paper.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

19 authors.

Giovanni LujanDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jennifer C QuigleyLabCorp Oncology, Burlington, NC, USA.
Douglas HartmanDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Anil ParwaniDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Brian RoehmholdtDepartment of Pathology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, La Canada Flintridge, CA, USA.
Bryan Van MeterBarco, Inc. Wauwatosa, WI, USA.
Orly ArdonDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Matthew G HannaDepartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Dan KellyInform Diagnostics Irving, TX, USA.
Chelsea SowardsLUMEA Lehi, UT, USA.
Michael MontaltoPathAI Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Marilyn BuiDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Mark D ZarellaJohns Hopkins Medicine Pathology Informatics, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Victoria LaRosaEducation Services Department, Oracle Corp, Austin, Texas, USA.
Gerard SlootwegPhilips, Best, NL, The Netherlands.
Juan Antonio RetameroPhilips, Best, NL, The Netherlands.
Mark C LloydInspirata, Inc. Tampa, FL, USA.
James MadoryDepartment of Pathology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Doug BowmanIndica Labs Corrales, NM, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We believe the switch to a digital pathology (DP) workflow is imminent and it is essential to understand the economic implications of conversion. Many aspects of the adoption of DP will be disruptive and have a direct financial impact, both in short term costs, such as investment in equipment and personnel, and long term revenue potential, such as improved productivity and novel tests. The focus of this whitepaper is to educate pathologists, laboratorians and other stakeholders about the business and monetary considerations of converting to a digital pathology workflow. The components of a DP business plan will be thoroughly summarized, and guidance will be provided on how to build a case for adoption and implementation as well as a roadmap for transitioning from an analog to a digital pathology workflow in various laboratory settings. It is important to clarify that this publication is not intended to list prices although some financials will be mentioned as examples. The authors encourage readers who are evaluating conversion to a DP workflow to use this paper as a foundational guide for conducting a thorough and complete assessment while incorporating in current market pricing. Contributors to this paper analyzed peer-reviewed literature and data collected from various institutions, some of which are mentioned. Digital pathology will change the way we practice through facilitating patient access to expert pathology services and enabling image analysis tools and assays to aid in diagnosis, prognosis, risk stratification and therapeutic selection. Together, they will result in the delivery of valuable information from which to make better decisions and improve the health of patients.

Indexed as

Business caseclinical laboratorydigital pathologyimplementationpatient care

Identifiers

PMID34221633
PMCPMC8240548

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.