SynthesisBMJ open quality2026
Technical error prevalence in the complete pathology tissue testing process: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An AI framework for automated quality control of paraffin block and slide consistency: a clinical evaluation and human-machine comparison study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo estimate the prevalence of technical errors in the total testing process of pathology tissue specimens.
designA systematic review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology was performed. Extracted data were pooled using a random-effects model and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approaches. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Science Direct databases were searched on 29 May 2025 for eligible studies. STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed studies published after 2003 that reported technical error prevalence in any aspect of routine tissue collection and processing.
resultsThe search returned 30 articles (31 studies), including data from 2 794 987 surgical pathology cases. Pooled effect sizes were calculated for pre-analytic errors at 16.71 per 1000 cases (95% CI 6.42 to 31.67), actively identified errors in the laboratory at 40.17 per 1000 (95% CI 7.04 to 97.61) and reported surgical pathology specimen errors at 4.94 per 1000 (95% CI 1.33 to 10.80). Subgroup analysis showed an occult error prevalence of 2.54 per 1000 cases (95% CI 1.63 to 3.64), and surgical pathology case contamination was 62.23 per 1000 (95% CI 8.22 to 159.33). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The analysis suggests that tissue processing technical errors are more prevalent than reported. A lack of standardised methods for defining and detecting errors contributes to undocumented and unidentified errors, leaving the true error prevalence unknown. The majority of clinical decisions are based on laboratory results; however, without reliable detection and reporting, errors in vulnerable processes risk compromising patient diagnoses. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024600518.
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.