ArticleCureus2025
An Analysis of Diagnostic Discrepancies in the Pathology Departments of Wigan and Salford.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this audit is to evaluate diagnostic discrepancies occurring between April 2022 and March 2024 within the Wigan and Salford pathology (PAWS) department. The audit measures the rate and category of errors, identifies the stages at which they occurred, assesses the methods by which they were detected, and considers their impact on patient care, comparing the results to national standards and published data to identify trends and areas of improvement. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was conducted through retrospective analysis of data extracted from the minutes of discrepancy meetings held during the specified two-year period. Each recorded discrepancy was reviewed and categorised according to error type, stage of occurrence, subspecialty and sample type, and method of identification. Results: This audit found that 56% of the identified discrepancies were of category B (discrepancies in microscopy). Specialties most involved in discrepancies were gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and breast, with biopsy samples being the most specimen type that is prone to error. It was also concluded that the multidisciplinary team (MDT) review was the most effective safety netting method for error identification and rectification at PAWS labs.
conclusionThe findings highlight the importance of having scheduled time for pre-MDT discussions in an era where histopathology departments are increasingly overstretched. We also highlight the importance of utilising in-lab imaging technologies to better assess post-radiotherapy specimens and biopsies. Strengthening these safety-netting strategies has the potential to reduce diagnostic discrepancies and improve overall patient care.
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.