ArticlePathologica2024
Digital transition in pathology lab: a survey from the Lombardy region.
Article in Pathologica, 2024. 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.
- Practical considerations for pathologists when selecting digital pathology systems: an ESDIP guide.The Journal of pathology · 2026Review
- The Italian Portrait of Laboratory Information Systems in Pathology: The Ones We Have and the Ones We Would Like.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital pathology is an opportunity to revise the routine and old artisanal workflow, moving to standard operating procedures, quality control and reproducibility. Here the results of a survey promoted by the Coordinamento della Medicina di Laboratorio (CRC Med Lab) of the Lombardy region in Italy are reported to shed light on the current situation of digital adoption in the country. Methods: The survey composed of 58 questions was sent to 60 pathology laboratories. The results were collected and most significant answers were reported and discussed. Results: Answers were received from 57 (95%) laboratories, a minority organized in spoke-hub networks (16%) with a centralized processing phase (11%). Hybrid manual/computer-assisted traceability was prevalent (36%), with QR/barcode labeling starting within the pathology lab (23%). Different laboratory information systems (LIS) were employed, mostly with alert functions and/or multimedial file attachments (56% and 46%, respectively). The majority opted for a semi-automated tracking management (44, 77%) and 18 centers (32%) were partly digitizing the routine (¾ scanning < 25% of slides). Whole slide images were retained for 3.7 years in average; in-house blocks/slides archiving was still preferred (30, 53%), with 1838 (±1551) and 1798 (±1950) days (5 years) internal permanence for blocks and slides that are stored in out-source (mean turnaround time for return on-demand 3.7±2.1, range 1-10 days). Conclusions: The advantages of digital pathology must be balanced against the challenges faced in the structural revision of the pathology workflow. This regional scouting can represent the foundation to build an efficient and connected digital pathology system in the territory.
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.