ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025
Comparison of the efficiency of digital pathology with the conventional methodology for the diagnosis of biopsies in an anatomical pathology laboratory in Spain.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerating the implementation of digital pathology in India.Journal of pathology informatics · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objective: Digital pathology (DP) encompasses the digitization of processes related to the acquisition, storage, transmission, and analysis of pathological data, contrasting with conventional methodology (CM) using optical microscopes. This study evaluates the efficiency of DP versus CM in a Spanish pathology department. Methods: Observational, retrospective, and non-interventional study comparing biopsy samples from 2021 (cases diagnosed using CM) and 2022 (using DP). Variables analyzed were the pathologist who made the diagnosis, the number of slides, and the case area. Outcome efficiency variables were the turnaround-time (TaT), pending cases (active cases each pathologist accumulates daily), and pathologist workload. A significance level of 5% was established, and an exploratory cost-analysis was also performed. Results: 11,922 cases were analyzed: 5,836 and 6,086 diagnosed with CM and DP methodologies, respectively. Mean TaT for CM-diagnosed cases was 10.58 (standard deviation [SD] 7.10) days, compared to 6.86 (SD 5.10) days for DP-diagnosed cases, reflecting a reduction of 3.72 days ( Conclusion: Our study is the first in Spain to compare the efficiency and costs of DP and CM. DP demonstrated significant efficiency improvements over CM, reducing TaT and pathologist workload. Despite higher initial costs, DP's operational benefits indicate its potential as a transformative diagnostic tool. Further studies are needed to evaluate its long-term cost-effectiveness.
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.