Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36268081›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2022

Types and frequency of whole slide imaging scan failures in a clinical high throughput digital pathology scanning laboratory.

Ankush U Patel, Nada Shaker, Savannah Erck, David A Kellough, Erin Palermini, Zaibo Li, Giovanni Lujan, Swati Satturwar, Anil V Parwani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Quality Management System in Clinical Digital Pathology Operations at a Tertiary Cancer Center.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
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.

Ankush U PatelThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Nada ShakerThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Savannah ErckThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
David A KelloughThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Erin PalerminiThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Zaibo LiThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Giovanni LujanThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Swati SatturwarThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Anil V ParwaniThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Department of Pathology, 450 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital workflow transformation continues to sweep throughout a diversity of pathology departments spanning the globe following catalyzation of whole slide imaging (WSI) adoption by the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The utility of WSI for a litany of use cases including primary diagnosis has been emphasized during this period, with WSI scanning devices gaining the approval of healthcare regulatory bodies and practitioners alike for clinical applications following extensive validatory efforts. As successful validation for WSI is predicated upon pathologist diagnostic interpretability of digital images with high glass slide concordance, departmental adoption of WSI is tantamount to the reliability of such images often predicated upon quality assessment notwithstanding image interpretability but extending to quality of practice following WSI adoption. Metrics of importance within this context include failure rates inclusive of different scanning errors that result in poor image quality and the potential such errors may incur upon departmental turnaround time (TAT). We sought to evaluate the impact of WSI implementation through retrospective evaluation of scan failure frequency in archival versus newly prepared slides, types of scanning error, and impact upon TAT following commencement of live WSI operation in May 2017 until the present period within a fully digitized high-volume academic institution. A 1.19% scan failure incidence rate was recorded during this period, with re-scanning requested and successfully executed for 1.19% of cases during the reported period of January 2019 until present. No significant impact upon TAT was deduced, suggesting an outcome which may be encouraging for departments considering digital workflow adoption.

Indexed as

Digital pathology (DP)Laboratory workflowQuality assuranceWhole slide imaging (WSI)WSI scan failure typesWSI scan frequencyWSI turnaround time (TAT)

Identifiers

PMID36268081
PMCPMC9577040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.