ReviewCureus2021
Diagnostic Pitfalls of Digital Microscopy Versus Light Microscopy in Gastrointestinal Pathology: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of a Low-Cost Whole Slide Imaging System for Pathological Diagnosis of Gastric Ulcers in Biopsy Specimens by Pathology Residents.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Roche Digital Pathology Dx whole slide imaging system is comparable to traditional microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the COVID-19 Lockdown-Adapted Online Methodology for the Cytology and Histology Course as Part of the Degree in Veterinary Medicine.Veterinary sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital microscopy (DM) is one of the cutting-edge advances in pathology, which entails improved efficiency, diagnostic advantages, and potential application in virtual diagnosis, particularly in the current era of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the diagnostic challenges are the remaining concerns for its wider adoption by pathologists, and these concerns should be addressed in a specific subspecialty. We aim to identify the common diagnostic pitfalls of whole slide imaging (WSI), one modality of DM, in gastrointestinal (GI) pathology. From validating studies of primary diagnosis performance, we included 16 records with features on GI cases involved, at least two weeks wash-out periods, and more than 60 case study designs. A tailored quality appraisal assessment was utilized to evaluate the risks of bias for these diagnostic accuracy studies. Furthermore, due to the highly heterogeneous studies and unstandardized definition of discordance, we extract the discordant cases in GI pathology and calculate the discrepant rate, resulting from 0.5% to 64.28%. Targeting discrepancy cases between digital microscopy and light microscopy, we demonstrate five main diagnostic pitfalls regarding WSI as follows: additional time to review slides in WSI, hard to identify dysplasia nucleus, missed organisms like
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.