Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40843333›Full record

ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2025

Assessment of interobserver variability in Gleason grading for prostate carcinoma.

Ilkay Cinar, Esma Cinar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

2 authors.

Ilkay CinarDepartment of Pathology, Giresun University Faculty of Medicine, Giresun, Turkiye.
Esma CinarDepartment of Pathology, Giresun University Faculty of Medicine, Giresun, Turkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Gleason Score is the most widely used grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma and it is the strongest predictor of the patient's clinical outcome similar to other grading systems, and plays a key role in determining the most effective treatment strategy for the patient. The Gleason scoring system is subject to both intraobserver and interobserver variability. This study aims to assess the interobserver agreement for prostate adenocarcinoma within the Gleason grading system at our center, as well as identify contributing factors.

methodsA total of 119 cases diagnosed with prostatic adenocarcinoma at Giresun Training and Research Hospital were included in the study. Tissue samples from the cases had been subjected to routine laboratory procedures; three-micron sections were obtained from formalin-fixed paraffin blocks and stained H&E. Statistical investigation was conducted on the agreement between Gleason pattern, Gleason sum score, and grade group data among three observers.

resultsIn the evaluation, interobserver agreement was found to be minimal (Gleason pattern k=0.285, total Gleason sum score k=0.309, Grade group k=0.313). The assessment indicated higher agreement in determining low grade compared to high grade, with a decrease in interobserver agreement as the grade increased. Moreover, interobserver agreement demonstrated an increase over the years (p<0.001).

conclusionThe findings underscore the ongoing inadequacy of interobserver agreement in the Gleason scoring system. Improvement suggestions involve conducting studies to ascertain in-clinic interobserver agreement enhancing training, facilitating information sharing, and employing accessible and easily applicable artificial intelligence-supported programs.

Indexed as

Gleason scoreinterobserver agreementprostate adenocarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID40843333
PMCPMC12365472

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.