ArticleDiagnostic pathology2026
Interobserver agreement among pathologists in the histopathological diagnosis and classification of colorectal polyps.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2026. 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
objectiveTo assess interobserver agreement among pathologists in the diagnosis and classification of colorectal polyps.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at Afzalipour Educational and Medical Center from 2017 to 2018. Three experienced pathologists independently evaluated 253 colorectal polyp specimens, encompassing a spectrum of neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. Polyps were classified into six categories and dysplasia was graded. Interobserver agreement was assessed using weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient.
resultsThe mean age of patients was 51.09 ± 20.11 years, with an average polyp size of 6.6 ± 0.6 mm. Most polyps (49.8%) were located in the colon, with 69.1% measuring 1-5 mm. Neoplastic polyps constituted 59.3% of the samples. Interobserver agreement for overall histopathological diagnosis was good (κ = 0.66). Agreement was very good for carcinoma in situ (κ = 0.87), good for adenomatous (κ = 0.78) and juvenile polyps (κ = 0.76), moderate for hyperplastic polyps (κ = 0.45), and poor for Inflammatory Polyps (κ = 0.16), solitary rectal ulcer (κ = 0.12), and sessile serrated polyps (κ = 0.14). Agreement on dysplasia grading was fair (κ = 0.32).
conclusionWhile agreement was good for adenomatous polyps and carcinoma, considerable variability exists in diagnosing certain polyp types and grading dysplasia. These findings highlight the need for standardized criteria and additional training to improve consistency in colorectal polyp assessment, particularly for serrated lesions and dysplasia grading.
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.