Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36098817›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2022

Use of modifying phrases in surgical pathology reports: is there a different understanding between pathologists and treating physicians?

V G Prieto, R T Vollmer, C R Shea

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

V G PrietoDepartment of Pathology, University of Texas-MD Anderson Cancer Center, Box 85, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. vprieto@mdanderson.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9204-7161
R T VollmerDepartment of Pathology, Veterans Administration Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, 27710, NC, UK.
C R SheaDepartments of Pathology and Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When not all the histopathologic and clinical features necessary for a pathology diagnosis are present in a particular specimen, pathologists may use modifying phrases to convey various degrees of certainty, e.g., "consistent with…" and "suggestive of…." However, it is unclear whether pathologists use such phrases consistently or whether treating physicians fully understand their intended meaning. A questionnaire concerning six common modifying phrases ("consistent with, suggestive of, suspicious for, highly consistent with, highly suggestive of, some features of") was sent to all physicians from a single institution who either issued or routinely received surgical pathology reports. Physicians were asked to rank their understanding of each phrase on a printed scale between 1 ("no evidence of") and 10 ("diagnostic of"). One hundred sixty physicians (74.3%) responded. Despite wide variation, there was a hierarchy (from more to less diagnostic): highly consistent > highly suspicious > consistent > suspicious > suggestive > some features (p < 1 × 10

Indexed as

Pathology, SurgicalHumansPathologistsSurveys and QuestionnairesDiagnostic techniquesPathologistsQualifying phrasesTreating physicians

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.