Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37082923›Full record

ArticlePediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology Society

Synoptic Reporting in Clinical Placental Pathology: A Preliminary Investigation Into Report Findings and Interobserver Agreement.

Sonia R Dancey, Samantha J Benton, Anthea J Lafreniere, Michal Leckie, Benjamin McLeod, Jordan Sim, Dina El-Demellawy, David Grynspan, Shannon A Bainbridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Standardized Placental Pathology Reporting: Improving Quality and Clinical Utility Recommendations From the Society for Pediatric Pathology Placental Pathology Reporting Task Force.Pediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology Society
    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.

Sonia R DanceyFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0714-2899
Samantha J BentonDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Anthea J LafreniereDivision of Pathology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michal LeckieDepartment of Pathology, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Benjamin McLeodDepartment of Pathology, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jordan SimDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dina El-DemellawyDepartment of Pathology, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
David GrynspanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vernon Jubilee Hospital, Vernon, BC, Canada.
Shannon A BainbridgeFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8947-8152

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPlacental pathology is key for investigating adverse pregnancy outcomes, however, lack of standardization in reporting has limited clinical utility. We evaluated a novel placental pathology synoptic report, comparing its robustness to narrative reports, and assessed interobserver agreement.

methods100 singleton placentas were included. Histology slides were examined by 2 senior perinatal pathologists and 2 pathology residents using a synoptic report (32 lesions). Historical narrative reports were compared to synoptic reports. Kappa scores were calculated for interobserver agreement between senior, resident, and senior vs resident pathologists.

resultsSynoptic reporting detected 169 (51.4%) lesion instances initially not included in historical reports. Amongst senior pathologists, 64% of all lesions examined demonstrated fair-to-excellent agreement (Kappa ≥0.41), with only 26% of Kappas ≥0.41 amongst those examined by resident pathologists. Well-characterized lesions (e.g., chorioamnionitis) demonstrated higher agreement, with lower agreement for uncommon lesions and those previously shown to have poor consensus. DISCUSSION: Synoptic reporting is one proposed method to address issues in placenta pathology reporting. The synoptic report generally identifies more lesions compared to the narrative report, however clinical significance remains unclear. Interobserver agreement is likely related to differential in experience. Further efforts to improve overall standardization of placenta pathology reporting are needed.

Indexed as

Pathology, ClinicalPlacentaFemaleHumansObserver VariationPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeResearch Reporthistopathologyinterobserver agreementlesionsplacental pathologystandardizationsynoptic reporting

Identifiers

PMID37082923
PMCPMC10559645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.