ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Improving diagnostic standards: a two-cycle clinical audit on core biopsy reports adherence to international guidelines for breast lesions.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer accounts for 24.5% of all cancer cases in women globally, with over 670 000 deaths annually. Early detection and accurate diagnosis are crucial, with breast biopsy reports being key to diagnosis and prognosis. This audit assessed the quality of breast biopsy reports to improve adherence to standardized reporting. Methods: A two-cycle clinical audit was conducted at Fauji Foundation Hospital. The first cycle (January 1-March 1, 2024) reviewed 200 biopsy reports against the Royal College of Pathologists' minimum dataset. Identified deficiencies led to an educational intervention, including targeted training and a standardized reporting template. The second cycle (May 16-July 10, 2024) evaluated the intervention's impact. Results: The first cycle showed high compliance in documenting patient profiles and certain pathological findings, but revealed notable gaps in reporting hormone receptor status (estrogen receptor [ER] and progesterone receptor [PR]) and Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2) metrics (67.1% compliance). Following the educational intervention and implementation of a standardized template, compliance for these metrics improved to 80.2%. Additional improvements were observed in the use of B category classification, histological typing, and overall adherence to the Royal College of Pathologists' minimum dataset. Conclusion: The intervention significantly improved the quality of breast biopsy reports, particularly in the documentation of hormone receptor status and HER2 metrics. Sustained training, periodic audits, and continued use of standardized templates are recommended to maintain and further enhance reporting standards.
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.