ArticleCureus2022
Physician and Surgeon Communication Assessed via the Pathology Requisition in a Regional Laboratory Over Ten Years.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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.
- SMARCB1-Deficient Renal Medullary Carcinoma: A Case Report Highlighting the Value of History and Race Information.Cureus · 2025Article
- Enhancing preanalytic surgical specimen management: experience of a system implementation initiative.Diagnostic pathology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Ineffective communication between healthcare providers is a known risk factor for adverse events. Objective The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the communication with pathology via an analysis of the information provided on the pathology requisitions over ten years. Methods All in-house surgical specimens and all non-gynecologic cytopathology specimens accessioned from 2011 to 2020 were retrieved at a regional laboratory. Cases with any clinical information were deemed to have a clinical history present (CHP). CHP was tabulated by submitting physicians/surgeons (SPS), hospital site, year, and tissue group. Results The study period contained 554,817 relevant pathology reports, of which 553,966 could be extracted. The overall CHP rate was 74% and varied from 76% to 67% over the study period. SPSes submitting ≥200 cases (n=314) had a mean/median/standard deviation/max/min CHP rate of 81%/92%/23%/100%/5%. The CHP varied between four hospital sites, from 53% to 97%. CHP varied from 61% to 99% by tissue group. Conclusions CHP is associated with several factors and appears to depend on the hospital culture, specialty, and individual physician/surgeon. The pathology requisition is a way to measure and track the communication that is clinically relevant. Improving communication with pathologists/the pathology department will likely require process changes and mandates. Hospital and laboratory accreditation bodies should consider effective communication with pathology a marker of quality and an accreditation issue.
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.